Apparently the State of Connecticut has decided the Wright Brothers were not the first to fly. A recent article in the NY Daily News states that Connecticut lawmakers have passed a bill giving the "First in Flight" title to a fellow named Gustave Whitehead, a former resident of Bridgeport, who they claim flew a machine of his own design in 1901, two years, four months and three days before the Wright Brothers' flights at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina on December 17, 1903. Typical political mumbo-jumbo that is particularly irritating to Jellystone Air Park Historian---and Zen Master of all things aviation---Brother Joe Baker. Here is what Joe had to say about the story:
Interesting.
This has been hashed and re-hashed.
Gustav Whitehead had very little provision for control of his aircraft, and while there are a number of folks who claim to have "flown" before the Wrights, none have had their understanding of aerodynamics. The Wrights invented the coordinated turn, and that is their legacy (along with correcting the Lilienthal lift tables, and the drastic improvement of the prop.)
Before the Wrights, there was no coordinated turn. And nobody cared, because nobody understood its importance. After them, everyone used it, and after a short period, it became crucial.
Those of you who learned to fly in the front seat of a Cub or Champ with a sadistic instructor who liked to yell and apply a rolled-up sectional to the back of your head may curse the Wrights and their emphasis on the coordinated turn. You probably learned to hate that little ball! But I'll bet you remember the first time you did a stall with that little ball off center!
Dealing with "firsts" in history is tricky. Everybody tried everything. The aileron, for instance, was patented by an Englishman in 1866! But it took the Wrights to put it "into context" of the coordinated turn. A good analogy would be this: Was Columbus the first to discover America? Of course not. Many folks came to America all throughout history, but after Columbus it stayed "found." To Europe, anyway. So he gets the credit.
So all the pieces for flight were around for a long time--George Cayley knew most of them a hundred years before--but the Wrights were the ones to arrange them in their proper place. A good treatment of this is at the end of Tom Crouch's "Bishop's Boys," which is the best treatment of the Wrights I've seen. Behind "Stick and Rudder" and "Fate is the Hunter," every pilot should have a copy of this book.
And by the way, the end of the article mentions the fact that the Wrights were not displayed in the Smithsonian as the first to fly until way late (the forties) in a "backroom deal." This is way off. But this story, totally unrelated, is a juicy one. Check it out. A few minutes on Google about the Wright/Langley controversy will unearth a clearer picture. This comment is totally off base.
Joe
I would not be surprised if someone told me that Brother Baker was the captain of the Kahuku High School debate team. I am surprised (and thankful) that he has never applied a rolled-up sectional to the back of my head!
For more on Gustave Whitehead go to www.gustave-whitehead.com
I would not be surprised if someone told me that Brother Baker was the captain of the Kahuku High School debate team. I am surprised (and thankful) that he has never applied a rolled-up sectional to the back of my head!
 |
| Tail wheel endorsement photo, October 23, 2009. Note the sweat-stained shirt. |
Joe,
ReplyDeleteI’m the historian whose research led to the Connecticut Assembly’s action. It’s new research with new findings, not a re-hash. You can find it here: www.gustave-whitehead.com It was peer-reviewed and confirmed earlier this year.
First, allow me to applaud your concise and vivid explanation of the Wrights’ contribution to aviation. I conclude from the way you explain things that you must be a good flight instructor. (I, too, learned on – and later instructed in – a taildragger and can relate to the experiences you describe.)
I feel it’s important to point out how significant the Wrights’ contribution to aviation was and that these new findings do not remove them from their rightful place in aeronautical history. I’m not “dissing” the Wrights. I don’t want my research to be “dissed” either. And I’m not suggesting you did. Indeed, as far as I can tell, we agree on all issues of substance.
When you write, “the Wrights invented the coordinated turn”, you may, indeed, be right. If you’d written, they’d been the first to make a sustained, controlled flight, it would have been wrong. You also write, Whitehead had “little provision for control”, wisely not ruling out that he did have some control. But how much?
What’s been established is that Whitehead published his system of wing-warping on Dec. 1, 1902 in a peer journal – some 4 months before the Wrights applied for their patent. In four news reports, Whitehead also describes the rudder he used. So he provably had all the elements necessary for accomplishing a coordinated turn. Did he?
As you, again, rightly point out, none of the witnesses at the time knew the difference. So, none of them described his turns in detail. However, some did witness him fly a full circle. We may never know for sure if he did. But it certainly seems likely.
I love your Columbus analogy! That pretty much sums up the situation. I also agree that the Smithsonian’s behavior is a side-issue. But I invite you to re-examine the “backroom deal” they did with the Wrights’ heirs in 1948. That contract requires the Smithsonian to say the Wrights flew first. It violates academic principles – which is the reason why the Smithsonian was barred from participating in peer-review proceedings.
Best wishes to the voice of truth and reason in North Carolina,
Sincerely,
John
John,
ReplyDeleteThanks for checking in! I added a link to the Gustave Whitehead website to the end of the post. It is most impressive. I believe that you and the voice of truth and reason in North Carolina would get along famously!
John,
ReplyDeleteWow!
A response from the guy who convinced Jane’s to alter its position!
Wow!
A response to a dashed-off ditty about a badly-written, and even worse researched article from my fading memory of my MA thesis darn near two decades old!
Did I say wow!?
Thanks for your comments! And I am extraordinarily flattered! How did you find us?
Great website. I am poring through it now, but it will take a while. Cool photo work! Some of your photo interpretations seem clear, although there are others I’m not sold on yet. But let me finish looking at it all!
I know I will have questions. Feel free to drop me a line at k7cci over at yahoo. I would love to continue to correspond. You have created quite a stir in our little “old airplane” community and a number of my buddies will want to see where this conversation goes.
Thanks for chiming in!
Joe Baker
Mr. Baker, I have been following the Whitehead issue closely, and I believe it has merit for any number of reasons, most of which I couldn't address here, but you have the website for the basics. The issue is much larger than the Smithsonian's continual dismissal of Whitehead. There are other aviators involved. I am proudly the cousin of one of our greatest aviators, Glenn Hammond Curtiss. I have been studying the battles between the Wrights and Curtiss for a number of years and I have arrived at far different conclusions from those in the book you recommend, "The Bishop's Boys" by Tom Crouch. I believe from my research that I can state unequivocally that Glenn Curtiss and the Smithsonian did not commit fraud when they repaired and flew the 1903 Langley aerodrome in 1914. I have references that date all the way back. The issue hasn't been addressed since before the misleading 1942 report published by the Smithsonian , which was practically written and definitely orchestrated by Orville Wright and his friend Fred Brewer, who was his biographer. The biography was also essentially written by Orville Wright.
ReplyDeleteFrom 1942 on, the Smithsonian began to obfuscate facts in favor of the Wrights. They badly wanted the Wright flyer, but they also were pressured by public opinion. Then came the official contract of 1948 between the Wright family. The Smithsonian was locked in.
You might say, as a relative, I am biased. Of course. But it sometimes takes a family member, knowing their ethics and values, to clarify history on one of their own. Tom Crouch is enormously biased. He is an associate, if not a friend, of the Wright family, who continue to put down Glenn Curtiss to this day, eighty some years after his death. Crouch is from Dayton, Ohio. He has the Smithsonian contract, the Wright flyer, and the tarnished reputation of the Institution to uphold since they "sold their soul," as Jack Carpenter said, first in 1942, again in 1948.
You say don't "dis" the Wrights. What did they do to my cousin, his reputation, and his place in history--with misleading information that won over the public and Wright advocates to this day?