A little correction :-)

The first flight was made by Santos Dummondt in Paris in 1903 before the brothers Wright. In this ocasion the "14bis" has landed from a field near Paris by itselt cross Paris turned around the Eiffel tower and came back to the field. Yes, I know you learn in the school about the first fly being made by the Wright Brothers. And yes, I know you will not believe about them "airplane" has flouth after, used a catapult to land and do not turn to any side.

-jr

According to last month's Scientific American magazine (Dec 2003), Alberto-Santos-Dumont made the first *public* demonstration of flight in a field on Nov 12, 1906, and flew for 722 feet.  Because there was no proof to the contrary at the time, he was hailed as the first man to fly.  "His countrymen today still revere Santos-Dumont as the Father of Aviation."  But in Dec 17, 1903, the Wright Brothers had flown a powered, heavier-than-air plane 852 feet in controlled, sustained flight... unfortunately they were very secretive, and would not allow the press or spectators to witness their success.  Earlier that same day, the "first" flight considered successful, was only 120 feet.  They, however, were certainly not the first men to fly... men had been flying since 1783, in balloons and gliders.  By 1903, powered balloon flights and glider soaring were commonplace... what they did not have was powered, controlled flight in a heavier-than-air machine. Clement Ader can be credited with the first powered takeoff in 1890, but his steam-powered aircraft reached an altitude of eight inches, sufficient to classify it as a flight only to his French countrymen.  Even New Zealand got into the air before us:  Richard Pearse, in March 1903, flew a bamboo-and-canvas monoplane about 450 feet before crashing into a gorse hedge, which doesn't really meet the definition of "controlled flight".  ;)

Seems to be an interesting story.  You may want to read it.

Sean


"Bono Vox" <bono@art.com> wrote in message news:brv5dr$1g1e$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> A little correction :-)
>
> The first flight was made by Santos Dummondt in Paris in 1903 before the brothers Wright. In this ocasion the "14bis" has landed from a field near
Paris
> by itselt cross Paris turned around the Eiffel tower and came back to the
field.
> Yes, I know you learn in the school about the first fly being made by the
Wright
> Brothers. And yes, I know you will not believe about them "airplane" has
flouth
> after, used a catapult to land and do not turn to any side.
>
> -jr

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean@verizon.net> wrote in message news:brvkii$283s$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> According to last month's Scientific American magazine (Dec 2003), Alberto-Santos-Dumont made the first *public* demonstration of flight in a field on Nov 12, 1906, and flew for 722 feet.  Because there was no proof
to
> the contrary at the time, he was hailed as the first man to fly.  "His countrymen today still revere Santos-Dumont as the Father of Aviation."
But
> in Dec 17, 1903, the Wright Brothers had flown a powered, heavier-than-air plane 852 feet in controlled, sustained flight... unfortunately they were very secretive, and would not allow the press or spectators to witness
their
> success.

They invited anyone from the local townfolk who wanted to watch. I think about 6 showed up. One of them was asked to operate the camera, which is where that famous photo came from.

> Earlier that same day, the "first" flight considered successful,
> was only 120 feet.  They, however, were certainly not the first men to
> fly... men had been flying since 1783, in balloons and gliders.  By 1903,
> powered balloon flights and glider soaring were commonplace... what they
did
> not have was powered, controlled flight in a heavier-than-air machine. Clement Ader can be credited with the first powered takeoff in 1890, but
his
> steam-powered aircraft reached an altitude of eight inches, sufficient to classify it as a flight only to his French countrymen.

Ader made many claims that were later disproven, such that I'll wait to see a flying replica of his "Eola" before believing that one.

> Even New Zealand got
> into the air before us:  Richard Pearse, in March 1903, flew a
> bamboo-and-canvas monoplane about 450 feet before crashing into a gorse
> hedge, which doesn't really meet the definition of "controlled flight".
;)

It's highly unlikely that Pearse actually flew, as eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, there is no corroborating evidence, and from looking at the wing area of his machine and the horsepower of his engine it seems very improbable it could have hopped more than a few inches. Fanciful exaggerations and newspaper accounts of "flights" were commonplace at the time. (Contemporary newspaper accounts of the Wrights' first flight were dismissed as a hoax.)

The Wright Flyer had a 40 foot wingspan biplane, a 90% efficient propeller, the most advanced and efficient airfoil of the day, and about 12 HP. Pearse had a small winged monoplane, no airfoil at all, probably a 40% efficient propeller, and 15 to 22 HP. The Wright Flyer was barely able to get aloft. Which is why the claims of Pearse are not credible. (Recall that at the time, Otto Lilienthal's tables of lift/drag were the standard of the day, and only the Wrights knew that they were off by a factor of 3. Anyone building an airfoil based on those tables, if they bothered to actually engineer their airfoils at all, simply would not have generated enough lift.)

I've read many interesting claims about other first flights - Ader, Pearse, Weisskopf, Langley, etc. A common thread is that nobody has ever been able to replicate their achievements. But people have duplicated the Wright Flyer and have matched the achievement of the original (97 feet and 150 feet for the Wright Experience replica, despite its subsequent inglorious failure on Dec. 17).

The Smithsonian commissioned a replica of the Langley "Aerodrome" to prove that Langley was first to fly. Unfortunately for Langley, all they did was prove the Aerodrome was incapable of flight. Some group replicated Weisskopf's machine, and in towing it showed it could "fly", but remember that towing it behind a pickup is quite a bit different than a primitive engine/propeller. Anything will "fly" given enough power. The Discovery Channel recently ran a show where some enthusiasts achieved "flight" of an outhouse by attaching rocket engines to it.

> Anything will "fly" given enough power.

Correct...
Lift=Cl * 0.5 * Rho * speed^2 * Surface
Also...
Drag=Cd * 0.5 * Rho * speed^2 * Surface

As long as you are able to generate enough speed you probably could fly a sky scraper... <g>
The important factor is the 'speed' with it powered by 2 which of course is generated by power as stated... ;-)

OK, let's not get into VTOL's....

> The Discovery
> Channel recently ran a show where some enthusiasts achieved "flight" of an
> outhouse by attaching rocket engines to it.

HA!

-- 
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper

Walter wrote:

> They invited anyone from the local townfolk who wanted to watch. I think
> about 6 showed up. One of them was asked to operate the camera, which is
> where that famous photo came from.

I thought I remembered that they had it on film... I.e. actual prove more or less... (Hey they didn't have Photoshop at that time to 'patch' a digital picture. Speaking of which, I don't think they had digital pictures either...)

An other issue is that the Wright brothers continued to work on planes and and became more and more successful. If I remember correctly they actually got involved with the army. I think a rather highly placed officer died in on of their test flights...

-- 
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper

"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:bs04nj$3150$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
>
> > They invited anyone from the local townfolk who wanted to watch. I think about 6 showed up. One of them was asked to operate the camera, which is where that famous photo came from.
>
> I thought I remembered that they had it on film...

To celebrate the anniversary, I put it on www.digitalmars.com <g>.

> An other issue is that the Wright brothers continued to work on planes and and became more and more successful. If I remember correctly they actually got involved with the army. I think a rather highly placed officer died in on of their test flights...

Isn't it ironic that the other claimants to first flight apparently abandoned their quest at their moment of triumph? Another common characteristic of the other first flighters is that none of them contributed a single principle to aeronautical engineering, whereas the Wrights contributed several still in use today.

If it weren't for the Wright Brothers, there would be no flight attendants, and that's a bad thing.

In article <bs07ob$45g$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:bs04nj$3150$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Walter wrote:
>>
>> > They invited anyone from the local townfolk who wanted to watch. I think about 6 showed up. One of them was asked to operate the camera, which is where that famous photo came from.
>>
>> I thought I remembered that they had it on film...
>
>To celebrate the anniversary, I put it on www.digitalmars.com <g>.
>
>> An other issue is that the Wright brothers continued to work on planes and and became more and more successful. If I remember correctly they actually got involved with the army. I think a rather highly placed officer died in on of their test flights...
>
>Isn't it ironic that the other claimants to first flight apparently abandoned their quest at their moment of triumph? Another common characteristic of the other first flighters is that none of them contributed a single principle to aeronautical engineering, whereas the Wrights contributed several still in use today.
>
>

Walter wrote:
>>
>>I thought I remembered that they had it on film...
> 
> 
> To celebrate the anniversary, I put it on www.digitalmars.com <g>.

Thanks! Will take a look at it!

>>An other issue is that the Wright brothers continued to work on planes
>>and and became more and more successful. If I remember correctly they
>>actually got involved with the army. I think a rather highly placed
>>officer died in on of their test flights...
> 
> Isn't it ironic that the other claimants to first flight apparently
> abandoned their quest at their moment of triumph? Another common
> characteristic of the other first flighters is that none of them contributed
> a single principle to aeronautical engineering, whereas the Wrights
> contributed several still in use today.

Exactly my point... Obviously they had some success and were not discouraged by any setbacks...

-- 
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper

"Juan C." <Juan_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bs0ajb$8cv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> If it weren't for the Wright Brothers, there would be no flight
attendants, and
> that's a bad thing.

LOL.

But seriously, if the Wrights hadn't done it, someone else would have eventually, probably by 1910. (By 1908 european aviation, developing independently since Santos Dumont's 1906 flight, still hadn't added roll control, and didn't until the Wrights demonstrated the enormous advantage of it in european air shows. Roll control seems painfully obvious to us now, but events of the time showed that it wasn't obvious at all.)

> Correct...
> Lift=Cl * 0.5 * Rho * speed^2 * Surface
> Also...
> Drag=Cd * 0.5 * Rho * speed^2 * Surface

Cool!  Where did you get this formula ?

C

"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:bs04gj$30nm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Anything will "fly" given enough power.
>
> Correct...
> Lift=Cl * 0.5 * Rho * speed^2 * Surface
> Also...
> Drag=Cd * 0.5 * Rho * speed^2 * Surface
>
> As long as you are able to generate enough speed you probably could fly
> a sky scraper... <g>
> The important factor is the 'speed' with it powered by 2 which of course
> is generated by power as stated... ;-)
>
> OK, let's not get into VTOL's....
>
> > The Discovery
> > Channel recently ran a show where some enthusiasts achieved "flight" of
an
> > outhouse by attaching rocket engines to it.
>
> HA!
>
> -- 
> ManiaC++
> Jan Knepper