Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Styxx on February 24, 2005, 07:30:10 am
-
So, who do you accept as being responsible for the first powered flight in a heavier-than-air machine?
Santos Dumont, who flew in 1906 in the middle of Paris with hundreds of witnesses and took off from the ground using the airplane's own power alone?
The Wright Brothers, who may have flew as early as 1903, but without credible witnesses or records, and had to push the aircraft off a cliff or use a catapult on all early models, and failed to fly when the press was called to witness a flight on 1904?
Or someone else entirely? I'm adding the two options I know of on the poll, but I can add others as they're suggested if they have merit.
-
If you are asking 'who is responsible?' as in who did all the preliminary work and design concepts - then I would have to say George Cayley - He was years ahead of anyone else, but the technology was not able to support his dream of self-powered flight: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SCIcayley.htm
But, as to 'who flew first?' then I'd go with the Wright Brothers as is generally accepted....
-
Originally posted by Clave
If you are asking 'who is responsible?' as in who did all the preliminary work and design concepts - then I would have to say George Cayley - He was years ahead of anyone else, but the technology was not able to support his dream of self-powered flight: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SCIcayley.htm
I mean who actually flew first.
Originally posted by Clave
But, as to 'who flew first?' then I'd go with the Wright Brothers as is generally accepted....
Generally accepted by north americans. ;)
-
Well natch, the US invented everything surely?
I mean piddly little Euro countries couldn't possibly have thought of anything...:p
-
We have cricket and football ;)
Anyway I'm curious to see the outcome of this one. I always learnt that the Wright Brothers made the first true flight.
-
It was all Snuffleupagus :p
-
Wrong. All of you.
It was Leonardo da Vinci :p
-
Iccarus! Iccarus flew first! With wings of feathers, and bones of wax!
-
Yeah, you guys are really taking this seriously. Now if this was politics... :p
-
The Wright Bros.!! It must be them! They're on all the postage stamps and stuff and... they're American! Americans must have invented flight! They wouldn't lie about something like that... would they?
:nervous:
Seriously though, in my book it was the Wilbur and Orville, although there were other guys trying the same thing around the same time so I suppose it always could be somebody else. I like my boys from Carolina though.
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
It was all Snuffleupagus :p
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Yeah, you guys are really taking this seriously. Now if this was politics... :p
That's because we love you!
Vee Lub J00!
-
*Huggles*
-
i watch birds
-
There was this guy (french I think) called Penoid (spelling?). Some time in the late 19th century he flew a small rubber band powered aircraft, went about 100m. Thus, he had the "first powered flight by a heavier-than-air machine".... but it was only a model, he never flew in it.
-
Pfft. Who made the first paper airplane back in the 1400's? Or do Gliders not count? :p
Err. In response to the post that will be made in the next few minutes. :nervous:
-
Actually, it was Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim (who also invented the machine gun) who in 1894 flew the first plane :)
(http://www.bondle.co.uk/personal_pages/jon/maxim/flyer-1a.jpg)
He only got about 4 feet above the ground but still :p But after trials it was concluded that the amount of water needed to power it was too heavy.
-
I believe that although there might possibly be others before orville and wilbur who flew in some way it is undeniable that these two men were the first ones to actually implement flight in a way useable for the rest of humanity.
-
The Wright brothers' plane didn't use any sort of catapult or cliff. I was at Kitty Hawk, and I know for a fact that they used a flat surface for the runway for their flight trials. They only used the sand dunes for glider test flights. Their actual powered flights took off while placed on a small cart that ran along a rail. The plane took off under its own power; the cart just acted as a temporary set of landing gear for the plane.
As for the thread's question, Wright brothers all the way. Did you even research this? There's an actual picture of their first flight in progress. Also, there was an entire Coast Guard station, plus a few other onlookers, present at this same flight. Somehow, I don't think all of them would make it up. Ridiculous conspiracy theories like this just annoy the hell out of me. The Wright brothers being credited with the first flight has nothing to do with them being American; it has to do with them actually flying first.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
The Wright brothers' plane didn't use any sort of catapult or cliff. I was at Kitty Hawk, and I know for a fact that they used a flat surface for the runway for their flight trials. They only used the sand dunes for glider test flights. Their actual powered flights took off while placed on a small cart that ran along a rail. The plane took off under its own power; the cart just acted as a temporary set of landing gear for the plane.
As for the thread's question, Wright brothers all the way. Did you even research this? There's an actual picture of their first flight in progress. Also, there was an entire Coast Guard station, plus a few other onlookers, present at this same flight. Somehow, I don't think all of them would make it up. Ridiculous conspiracy theories like this just annoy the hell out of me. The Wright brothers being credited with the first flight has nothing to do with them being American; it has to do with them actually flying first.
Right. That's why the whole world at the time considered Santos Dumont as the first one to actually fly, and the Wright Brothers only "replaced" him many years later, when "evidence" of their flights started to show up. That's also why a magazine article from 1906 about them is entitled "Flyers or Liars", when all they had to do was call in the reporters and fly the damn thing. Amazingly, their plane always seemed to break down when credible press representatives were on the vicinity.
So yeah, forgive my skepticism. This thread is mostly to know what the educational systems on various countries teach about it.
-
Actually, I don't truly recall this being taught at all. And if it was, It was probably "The Wright Borthers flew first... now... moving on to WWII, when we bailed out Europe..."
:rolleyes: :lol: and :doubt: are how I feel about that. :p
-
Dumont had a monoplane with rear control fins in 1909?
(http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Santos-Dumont/DI41G2.jpg)
He was waay ahead of everyone! :eek:
-
Originally posted by Raa
WWII, when we bailed out Europe...
Do they skip WW1 in US history lessons? "Oh we turned up late..."
-
Originally posted by Clave
Dumont had a monoplane with rear control fins in 1909?
How could I forget about the brazilian/French weirdo dude... :blah:
He was waay ahead of everyone! :eek:
Actually, he was the third person to fly a powered aircraft :p
-
Originally posted by Clave
Do they skip WW1 in US history lessons? "Oh we turned up late..."
Practically. We spent very little time on it... probably 2 days, if that. But then, I always knew I was getting a raw deal in my education. :p
Especially when we watched Braveheart for 2 weeks, but we couldn't learn about 90% of real history. :doubt:
-
Histort Channel man. Its really the only channel I watch anymore. Ever since I started watching that channel I havent had to study for a single history test.
-
Study? Tests?
oh yeah...that happened...some time ago...maybe...
But yes to the The History Channel :yes: it's good stuff.
-
Originally posted by Clave
Do they skip WW1 in US history lessons? "Oh we turned up late..."
Funny you should ask. I'm reading the WWI section in my US History textbook tonight. It's 25 pages and half of that is about the home front during the war. And as far as what it has to say... well, I'll quote.
[American] soldiers filled their diaries and letters with descriptions of the local customs and "ancient" architecture and noted how the grimy and war-torn French countryside bore little resemblance to the groomed landscapes they had seen before in paintins. Some mixed admiration for the spirit of endurance they saw in the populace with irritation that the locals were not more grateful for the Americans' arrival. "Life in France for the American soldier meant marching in the dirt and mud, living in cellars in filth, being wet and cold and fighting," the chief of staff of the Forth Division remarked. "he had come to help France in the hour of distress and he was glad he came but these French people did not seem to appreciate him at all."
It then goes on to say that the arrival of American men and material basically won the war because everyone else was tired of fighting. The end.
-
Wright Brothers.
My WWI lesson lasted at least three weeks.
-
"soldiers filled their diaries and letters with descriptions of the local customs and ancient architecture and noted how the grimy and war-torn Iraqi countryside bore little resemblance to the groomed landscapes they had seen before in Disney's Aladdin. Some mixed admiration for the spirit of endurance they saw in the populace with irritation that the locals were not more grateful for the Americans' arrival. "Life in Iraq for the American soldier meant marching in the dirt and sand, living in cellars in filth, being dry and hot and fighting," the chief of staff of the Forth Division remarked. "he had come to help Iraq in the hour of distress and he was glad he came but these Iraqi people did not seem to appreciate him at all."
US history book, circa 2105.
-
If there is a 'U.S.' in 2105... :blah:
-
Originally posted by Tight Kevlar
Wright Brothers.
My WWI lesson lasted at least three weeks.
Lol. Tight Kevlar...
-
I wonder who Tight Kevlar could possibly be...
-
I wonder why he would want to drop all of his many many project badges...
-
The...Wright...Brothers...
???
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
Histort Channel man. Its really the only channel I watch anymore. Ever since I started watching that channel I havent had to study for a single history test.
So, I'm not the only one.:D They need to show more on blowing up than aliens now tho.:lol: The only other show really like is Mythbusters, and they mainly... blow stuff up.:D
But, back on subject, The Wright Bros were the first in flight.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
But, back on subject, The Wright Bros were the first in flight.
You read that off the North Carolina Quarter, didn't you? :p
-
Originally posted by Raa
You read that off the North Carolina Quarter, didn't you? :p
Yeah, so, what's your point?:p
-
Didn't realise I had a fan club.
:thepimp:
-
you're silly.
anyway, some people claim that some farmer in australia was making regular flights by 1902. BTW, I invented the cotton gin for my 4th grade science project.
-
Originally posted by Raa
Especially when we watched Braveheart for 2 weeks, but we couldn't learn about 90% of real history. :doubt:
You know, it scares me that a country should use sensation-led movies to educate it's young.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Funny you should ask. I'm reading the WWI section in my US History textbook tonight. It's 25 pages and half of that is about the home front during the war. And as far as what it has to say... well, I'll quote.
It then goes on to say that the arrival of American men and material basically won the war because everyone else was tired of fighting. The end.
It's sort of true, but not because of the US Army; the Royal Navy had blockaded Germany for years, the German troops (despite better trenches and thus living conditions) were starving - as were the civillians. Of course, the blockade is what led to the unrestricted u-boat warfare that brought the US into the war..... so it's questionable whether US neutrality could/would have lasted anyways.
You could say the arrival of fresh troops 'broke the camels back' in terms of ending the war; at the same time it's equally argueable that, without US involvement, the war would have ended sooner rather than later anyways.
-
Yes, the Americans had a far more definitive positive impact during WWII. Though I love that paragraph about France and the French, it does, to a small degree, show a wonderful level of naivety in that era. :D
-
I didn´t read the entire thread, so excuse me if i repeat something.
The first heavier than air flight (assuming you don´t include ballons) was done bt the german Otto Lillienthal, who flew a plane reminiscent of Leonardo´s flying machine. It had no engine, and he flew from the top of a hill, for some 60 meters or so.
If you mean a flight with engine propulsion, then history tells us the Wright bros were first, allthough i´m not so sure. There were lots of people trying the same thing in those days, the Wright bros were only the first to get the public attention to it.
-
It depends on how you define "flight".
If it's simply rising on air, the Chinese flew people in kites in the 13th century.
If it's rising above the ground with no visible means of support, then the Montgolfier brothers did it in their balloon.
If it's gliding above the ground, several people did it in the 19th century. Otto Lilienthal did it several times, though his glides were limited to around 30 seconds at most. Sir George Cayley pulled one of his attendants in a "powered" glider pulled by a horse.
What the Wright brothers did, and what we commonly accept as the definition of aviation today, was the first powered controlled flight.
-
The problem I have with the Wright brothers is that their flight was never replicated which to a scientific mind doesn't really make it the winner.
Furtermore they then abandoned the plane they had built and went on to use a catapault launching system.
-
On the contrary, they flew four times that day at Kitty Hawk.
Here's a good defense of the Wright Brothers. Probably a better one than I could write:
http://www.100aviators.com/contro.html
-
Yeah but only the last one was controlled flight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers
I'm not saying that later attempts can't be considered but the 1903 one is worthless unless it can be replicated. As are all the other flights that couldn't be replicated.
The first flight was the one that could be repeated with the same plane within a reasonable period of time.
-
The 1903 flight was replicated... with the same plane. :)
http://www.wrightexperience.com/
Not the same physical plane, but the same design... reproduced in exacting detail. :)
-
Originally posted by Raa
Iccarus! Iccarus flew first! With wings of feathers, and bones of wax!
:nod: Heh, I'll vote for Icarus as well.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
The 1903 flight was replicated... with the same plane. :)
http://www.wrightexperience.com/
Not the same physical plane, but the same design... reproduced in exacting detail. :)
Well if you're going to use that logic then Leonardo Da Vinci made the worlds first parachute jump cause someone recently made one of his designs and proved it worked :p
-
I'd happily say he invented the first parachute, but I wouldn't say he made the first parachute jump... unless we discover evidence that he built it and tried it out. ;)
Just like Charles Babbage designed the first mechanical computer (aside from simple stuff like the abacus) even though he never built it. Whereas the Wright Brothers both designed and built the first airplane.
Addendum: Incidentally, the Wright Experience flyer wasn't built by following the Wright Brothers' original designs, since they seldom wrote them down. Instead, people reverse-engineered the original plane and determined which components were original and which were replaced. They pieced together scattered notes from diaries and re-used original components that survived the 100 years unscathed. It was very much like an archeological expedition. ;)
So in essence the reconstructed plane was a physical copy of the original plane, rather than a new plane built from specific plans and blueprints. :)