Flight before wrights?

[Bill Greenwood]

For years there has been a story of a man, Gustave Whitehead in Connecticut who may have flown a powered plane in 1901, two years before the Wright Bros flight.

Some years back, there was a replica built and shown at Oshkosh.
It was a strange looking thing, with the bottom or fuselage part being almost exactly like a boat. It looked like you could remove the wings and row it out on the lake.
The wings were sort of bat like and were set above the boat part.

Anyway it was interesting, but certainly didn't fly at EAA.
The consensus as far as I recall was that the story was interesting , but no real proof of flight.

Now the story has arisen again on another site. There is claimed to be a picture of it in flight in 1901, buit it looks photoshop to me.
I don't put much stock in it, but there is a lot to read.

One thing we know about the Wrights, that with pretty much the same design as the first flight airplane, they went on to make and fly planes the could not only hop,but fly controlled circuits and carry a passenger, and they did it not only here but in Europe.

[Hal Bryan]

My friend and former boss presented a fascinating webinar on this topic, including a close look at Whitehead:

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=715566964001

[Jeremy Leasor]

Clement Ader may have been the first. The French certainly think so. He was supposed to have taken off, flown for about 120 feet and landed in L'Eole, all under its own steam - literally, it was steam-powered - in France in 1890. A replica of Ader's Avion lll, similar to but larger than L'Eole, hangs in the Musee des Arts et Metiers in Paris, with a replica of its steam engine on separate display. Henri Farman flew the first closed-circuit kilometer (all previous powered flights, anywhere, had apparently merely been hops in a straight line) demonstrating for the first time mastery of heavier-than-air flight, on 13 January 1908 in an aircraft designed and built by Gabriel Voisin, who had also taught Farman to fly and swung the prop for him.

[Bill Greenwood]

Hal, can you summerize for us? My computer for some reason (likely operator error) has a difficult time playing any video like a webinar.
Did you see the new info on WIX.

[Hal Bryan]

Henri Farman flew the first closed-circuit kilometer (all previous powered flights, anywhere, had apparently merely been hops in a straight line)

You're right about Farman, but not about all previous flights - the Wrights flew their Flyer II in a 360 circle for the first time in 1904, and had flights up to nearly 5 kilometers. In 1905, Wilbur flew the Flyer III for more than half an hour, circling over Huffman Prairie and covering something like 38 kilometers.

Farman's flight was recognized because he had (or allowed) two things the Wrights' didn't: Publicity, and a predetermined course. It didn't help that the European press routinely called the Wrights liars at the time... :)

[Hal Bryan]

Hal, can you summerize for us? My computer for some reason (likely operator error) has a difficult time playing any video like a webinar.
Did you see the new info on WIX.

Not easily, Bill - it's a nearly 90-minute presentation... Does YouTube work any better for you? It does for some, and this one is posted there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4i7yNzsLD0

(No idea why the screen ended up so small on both versions - luckily, the presentation is more about the audio than the imagery.)

[Kyle Boatright]

I wrote a report about Gustav Whitehead when I was in the 7th or 8th grade. I concluded that he was the first to fly. Largely because his airplanes looked like airplanes.

But 35 years later, I wonder why he didn't do any follow-up work on his invention? I mean, zero, zip, nada. It doesn't make sense. Also, his prop's and control systems (IIRC) were rudimentary, at best, making me question his claims...

[Mike Switzer]

There was supposedly a guy in either Australia or New Zealand also - I have a file somewhere I will try to look for it tomorrow.

[Hal Bryan]

That was Richard Pearse in New Zealand - another very interesting counterclaim like Whitehead's.

[Hal Bryan]

An overview of Pearse here:

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/culture/richard-pearse

Interesting to note that he himself didn't claim to have beaten the Wrights in any way, but sone eyewitnesses did.

[Jeremy Leasor]

You're right about Farman, but not about all previous flights - the Wrights flew their Flyer II in a 360 circle for the first time in 1904, and had flights up to nearly 5 kilometers. In 1905, Wilbur flew the Flyer III for more than half an hour, circling over Huffman Prairie and covering something like 38 kilometers.

Farman's flight was recognized because he had (or allowed) two things the Wrights' didn't: Publicity, and a predetermined course. It didn't help that the European press routinely called the Wrights liars at the time... :)

I stand corrected. My information on the Farman flight came from an article Griffith Borgeson wrote for Automobile Quarterly in 1975. I guess Voisin and the European press bitterly resented the fact that the Wrights had beaten them to it. I gather that Voisin was obsessed with this until his death in 1973.

[danielfindling]

Nova did a nice documentary on another early aviation pioneer before the Wrights Alberto Santos Dumont.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=hU9A81yIYTI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhU9A81yIYTI

[Hal Bryan]

Santos Dumont was a fascinating figure. When we (Microsoft) shipped the "Century of Flight" edition of Flight Simulator, we weren't allowed to sell it in Brazil until the local distributor added some stickers to the box celebrating Dumont and shrink wrapped a CD with a version of his 14-bis that could be flown in the sim.

[Hal Bryan]

I hadn't had the chance to read any of the articles that seemed to be suddenly popping up about Whitehead, so I didn't realize why he was "spontaneously" back in the news until this morning. Apparently, according to this article, the next edition of Jane's is going to credit him as the first:

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Aviation-bible-Whitehead-flew-first-4348050.php

[Bill Greenwood]

Hal, that new news story is why I wrote about this 3 days ago; but maybe my piece was not that clearly written.
When the Whitehead thing came up in the past, I looked into it then, but certainly couldn't conclude that there was any real evidence that he actually flew it back then.
I have read some of the new stuff and still have doubts. First, of some of the newspaper articles referred to, many are not from the area, such as one that is even from Australia. These certainly aren't eyewitness reports, they really are just reprinted stories not much more than hearsay.
Also, the museum pushing this has an obvious interest in it, not really unbiased.
There is a claim that the modern replica actually flew,but then the story says it really was pulled aloft by a car, which is a far cry from a solo powered controlled flight. And Cliff Robertson was a friend, a nice guy, and a glider pilot. But I doubt if he was the top selection if you were looking for a test pilot for a real first flight of a powered replica.
If there was a replica built, that was exact down to even the engine and props, and it really flew, then I think it would make the news. Not something pulled by a car as thousands of gliders or even hang gliders are today, or something with a modern engine or props.
And there was photography back then. We have many photos of the civil war, of Wyatt Earp, of Geronimo, of Davy Crockett, etc. etc. and of course the Wrights in flight. It does not stand to reason that Gustave did all these flights and yet there is no real photo evidence.
Frankly, I could be wrong, but this seems like an alien campaign to me. Lot's of stories, but no proof. And the Wright Bros plane and planes survive today, they are not myths. Where is the original Whitehead plane?
Maybe they will bring the replica to EAA again this year, i'd love to have another look at it, and specifically what the control system, if any, is like.
Maybe they could even run the replica engine just as EAA has run Wright engine.

[Floatsflyer]

Well, it only took 109 years to right the wrong and provide Whitehead with his due credit for one of historys greatest events. And the conclusion is not based on new evidence, but rather the same documented evidence that existed 111 years ago in the form of newspaper reports and technical journals of the day.

So there are many "whys" that still remain unanswered.

Why didn't Whitehead receive the acclaim and notoriety he deserved at the time of first flight plus repeated flights?

Why weren't the Wrights discredited as being first at the time they flew?

In the face of the overwhelming evidence of the time, why was Whitehead overlooked in favour of the Wrights? For this answer one might have to look deep inside the soul and psyche of America itself. As has too often been the case historically, perhaps 2 all-American bicycle shop owners from Dayton were far more marketable and appealing than a lowly German immigrant from Conn. Discrimination? Possibly? Likely?

If I was one of Whitehead's decendants, I think I'd have very mixed emotions.

[Bill Greenwood]

Floats, your suggestion of discrimination against Whitehead in favor of the all American Wrights does not hold water.

If Whitehead did achieve real controlled powered flight in Aug. 1901, but did not receive recognition then, it certainly wasn't because of and in favor of the Wrights AT THAT TIME.

Virtually no one knew much about the Wrights until they actually flew, they weren't the celebrities or favorites before then and even after they flew, it was some time before the world and general public really knew about them.

The were many people and inventors in the U S back then who had in some way come from the old country and we had not yet had WW I or II with Germany so it was not the parahia that it was by the 1940's.

I don't think Whitehead got the recognition because there was not the proof.

One more fact, that of density altitude. The myth says Whitehead flew in Aug. at a time of year when it is hot and the air thin. One of the reasons the Wrights were able to do their first flight was that it was in cold weather in Dec, and they later had trouble when they tried to fly back home in Ohio in the summer. It's hard to believe that Whitehead would not have this trouble too.

Another dubious point, did Whitehead really do something monumental that people had tried for years to do, and then just drop it after succeeding? Not likely and not what the Wrights did.

For true believers, I can get you a photo of Whitehead's first flight. Just send me $10,000 and I'll get one printed up. And for $100,000 I can get you one of his plane in flight with you in the cockpit. For just a little more, say $1 million, we can have the photo show it flying inverted around the Statue of Liberty.
Now I am not that good with photoshop, but I know someone who is.

[Hal Bryan]

Hal, that new news story is why I wrote about this 3 days ago; but maybe my piece was not that clearly written.

Not at all, Bill - I was aware that there was a lot of Whitehead buzz as there is every several years, but, to me, the kicker was the fact that Jane's was going to "rule" in his favor, so to speak. That's the part that I didn't catch until I actually had a moment to read the article that you were referring to.


Maybe they will bring the replica to EAA again this year, i'd love to have another look at it, and specifically what the control system, if any, is like.

Same here.

[Floatsflyer]

Bill, my suggestion wasn't meant to hold water or any other liquid, merely a possible answer/theory as to "why". In the absence of anything else that makes sense, I think it should at least be considered and discussed. Now that Jane's has given the recognition, the fascinating and confounding thing for me is all the "whys" I desribed. Jane's has major cred and the "proof" provided to them is good enough for them so it's good enough for me and others.


I wasn't referring to Whitehead's country of birth/nationality at all, just that he was an immigrant. We're all immigrants or the children of immigrants. But there has been a prevailing historical negative attitude amongst first, second, etc generation Americans towards current immigrants in any timeframe.

[Bob Dingley]

For holders of a Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award, you should watch the mail for a small sticker that says "second place" so you can update your award.

[Floatsflyer]

......and a major recall of every single North Carolina license plate so the slogan can be erased, changed and returned. Sign on the Connecticut turnpike, "Welcome to Connecticut, First in Flight...Really"

[Floatsflyer]

The North Carolina governor's office is stunned by the recent Jane's acknowledgement but has relunctantly agreed to make the necessary changes to all symbols and monuments within the state referring to the Wrights and first in flight slogans. To begin, they are holding a public contest to choose the new license plate slogan. They advise that it must be aviation oriented and must be able to fit on a plate.


Let's all chip in here with ideas to help out and send to NC. My picks: "We're Number 2"; Jane's Screwed Us"

[WeaverJ3Cub]

The North Carolina governor's office is stunned by the recent Jane's acknowledgement but has relunctantly agreed to make the necessary changes to all symbols and monuments within the state referring to the Wrights and first in flight slogans. To begin, they are holding a public contest to choose the new license plate slogan. They advise that it must be aviation oriented and must be able to fit on a plate.

You're not serious are you?

I took a brief look through the Whitehead site, and when I came across references to Wilbur having supposedly left aviation to become a fire-breathing fundamentalist preacher and then saw the questionable "science" done on a low-res picture in another picture of the wall of a museum, I stopped reading.


On another note, Jane's decision surprises me, but at the same time I'm reluctant to just believe all of Tom Crouch's responses, as he has something of a vested interest in the Wrights. :)

[Bill Greenwood]

I didn't see the reference to Wilbur Wright leaving aviation to become a fundamentalist preacher. But if that is what is written, it is almost certainly nonsense for at least two reasons. Although they were a religious family, with their Bishop Father, I have never read anything of either of the brothers doing any preaching.

The other reason is that Wilbur died of an illness in 1912, so he didn't do anything after that, religion or aviation.
Orville lived to age 76 in 1948.

So if this part of the Whitehead site is wrong, the rest of it may be suspect also.

[Floatsflyer]

You're not serious are you?

Yes, I'm not serious. In thinking about all the possible ramifications of Jane's decision, just wanting to have some fun with it. Join in.

[rwanttaja]

Yes, I'm not serious. In thinking about all the possible ramifications of Jane's decision, just wanting to have some fun with it. Join in.
Ummmm.....ummmm.... we're all gonna get stickers of Gustav Whitehead to paste over the Wrights on our pilot licenses? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[58boner]

Actually the Wrights first claim to a "Flight" might be stretching it a bit, certainly not a flight by our standards today. But they stuck with it. Even through failures, fatalities, and lack of sales they finally got something they could reliably fly. Found some people willing to pay money for it, and made a life of promoting it.
For these accomplishments they deserve the title "First in Flight". Remember, first doesn't have to mean first to do it!

[Bill Greenwood]

The first flight on Dec. 17, 1903 wasn't much, only 120 feet or 40 yards. You can punt or maybe even throw a football that far. But there were 4 total made and the last one was 852 feet, about a minute long and almost 3 football fields. That was certainly flying.

There were 5 witnesses there and good photograph of it. The young man told others. "They did it, damned if they ain't flew, and the Bros sent a wire to their Father, "success".
More proof of what they had was the many glider flights they made there the year before that showed the had some control over the plane, thought still nowhere like they had in a few more years.

And when you say, "not by our standards today", would you say there were no German rockets or Goddard ones, because after all they didn't go to the moon, or to orbit?

Would you say the 1750 Model A s that Ford built in !903-4 were not really cars since they aren't up to what we have now?

[Floatsflyer]

Remember, first doesn't have to mean first to do it!

Whoooooa! WTF does that mean??? You must be a card carrying subscriber to the Bill Clinton definition of sexual relations.

[WeaverJ3Cub]

Yes, I'm not serious. In thinking about all the possible ramifications of Jane's decision, just wanting to have some fun with it. Join in.

Ah, I see. Pretty funny.

[Bill Greenwood]

Tom Crouch of the National Air and Space Museum makes a good point on their website on Friday.

None of the planes that Whitehead built after 1902 ever flew. So if he really flew in 1901, how did he not have the secret of flight the next years?

[58boner]

Mr Greenwood if you will read my whole statement you will notice I am sticking up for the Wrights, not minimizing their accomplishments. You must agree a flight of 120 feet is quite a modest accomplishment. Although as I recall the EAA couldn't duplicate the effort 100 years later. But that is another argument for another time.
As for the use of the expression "First in Flight" first can also be used to express a superlative status. Like the "first string quarterback" or the "First chair" in an orchestra.
I'll stand by the claim the wrights deserve the credit for the first controlled heavier than air flight. They did it, they had the tenacity to stick with it using their own resources while Hanley was throwing government money into the Potomac. The Wrights did it with science. They proved the principals in experiments before they tried them in the air. Let's not forget they also had to invent the engine! Which brings us to the genius of Charles Taylor, another unsung mechanic toiling in the shadow of his employers.
I like the history books just the way they were when I was in school on this topic.

[Bill Berson]

Tom Crouch of the National Air and Space Museum makes a good point on their website on Friday.

None of the planes that Whitehead built after 1902 ever flew. So if he really flew in 1901, how did he not have the secret of flight the next years?
Maybe Whitehead, like other crackpot geniuses, tried too many ideas at once. For example:
The most astounding thing that I read on the Whitehead site was that Whitehead drove the airplane several miles to the flight area. ( don't think there was any airports in those days)
In other words, Whiteheads aircraft was the first roadable aircraft. It had a separate engine for road use.

[Bill Greenwood]

I don't know of Whitehead driving his airplane on the ground, much less for several miles.

However,The website has a number of good photos of the plane on the ground and one of them is of it being driven with the wings folded and it mounted on a rack built on top of a car, kind of a nice looking rig.

[Andrew King]

Well, you've got a guy who's trying to make a name for himself as a historian (John Brown), and what better way than to start a controversy. And then there's Janes All the World's Aircraft, which nobody has talked about in years, and surprise, they've found a way to get a ton of publicity too, by endorsing the controversy. But the best Mr. Brown has come up with is "evidence of the existance of a photo", and some other easily refuted evidence. Please read his whole argument, http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/ , and then read Tom Crouch's replies, http://newsdesk.si.edu/sites/default/files/2013-Whitehead-Statement.pdf and http://newsdesk.si.edu/sites/default/files/Wright-Contract.pdf . Then form an opinion.

Also, honestly, if there was conclusive evidence that somebody flew before the Wrights does anybody really think that the curators at NASM would lie to try to cover it up? This isn't 1914 any more, these guys are scholars and historians first, and interested in the truth. In 2005 NASM senior curator Peter Jakab was asked what the response would be if the Smithsonian was presented with conclusive evidence that Whitehead had flown, and he stated,

"We would present as accurate a presentation of the history of the invention of the airplane as possible, regardless of the consequences this might incur involving the agreement. Having said that, however, at this time, as in 1948, there is no compelling evidence that Whitehead or anyone else flew before the Wright brothers."



-

[Neoflyer]

This old story is right in line with my opinion of the claims that others, the Vikings, the Chinese discovered the Americas before Columbus. I say "So what"? What did they make of their discovery? Aviation, as we know it, started with the Wrights. Even if Whitehead flew before them what came of it? If your discovery doesn't lead to something it's just trivia, a curiosity.

[Jim Heffelfinger]

I offer John J Montgomery as first controlled heavier than air - unpowered. Research this nearly forgotten aviation pioneer.
Golden West Fly In theme this year - On display will be a (hopefully) flying replica of the Santa Clara Glider on display.
jim
http://www.goldenwestflyin.org/News/news%20main%20page.htm

[Bill Greenwood]

The side supporting Whitehead might point to a modern built replica which is said to have made a flight a few years ago. I didn't see much media coverage if any, of this flight. You would think there would be a big story in EAA magazines and maybe something on tv of this, if it happened.

But, even if the modern replica flew in some fashion, it certainly doesn't prove that the original one was even capable of flight. The modern one had, I believe 2 modern ultralight type engines, light weight and with a good power for their size.
You could imagine how well the Wright plane would accelerate and take off if it was correct except for having the original engine replaced with a 90 or 100 hp Rotax!

So we know that the Whitehead plane did not go on to fly and be proven beyond any doubt as well as survive today as the Wright planes did.
Several sources also say that Whitehead engines were used by others. But as for as I know, none survived, and no one has built a copy of that engine and tried to fly with it or even run it. The EAA and others have genuine Wright engines and they really work, even if primitive.

Supposedly some people claimed to have seen Whitehead fly, but their accounts are pretty dubious. After all, lots more people claim to have seen Bigfoot or aliens from flying spacecraft, but there never seems to be any Bigfoot carcass much less any clear photos.


Does anyone know if there are any of the origianal Whitehead engines in a museum or in existance today?

[Hal Bryan]

The side supporting Whitehead might point to a modern built replica which is said to have made a flight a few years ago. I didn't see much media coverage if any, of this flight. You would think there would be a big story in EAA magazines and maybe something on tv of this, if it happened.

I've attached the only article I've found so far, this one from the December '87 issue of Sport Aviation. I've only just skimmed it, but it shows some photos of the 21B replica that was here that summer, and refers to flights that happened with Weedhopper engines and modern props, as well as the efforts to build the silk-covered props like the original. At the time this was written, they were hoping to build a replica of a Whitehead engine and then come back and fly it at Oshkosh - so far as I know, that never happened.

[Kyle Boatright]

Maybe Whitehead, like other crackpot geniuses, tried too many ideas at once. For example:
The most astounding thing that I read on the Whitehead site was that Whitehead drove the airplane several miles to the flight area. ( don't think there was any airports in those days)
In other words, Whiteheads aircraft was the first roadable aircraft. It had a separate engine for road use.

Claims like that cost the Whitehead argument credibility from my perspective. The early aircraft were all underpowered, so it doesn't stand the test of reason that Whitehead's airplane had enough surplus power to overcome inefficient props, an inefficient wing, and still carry an extra engine and drivetrain.

Also, someone please show me the drivetrain for the two props and explain how Whitehead proposed to steer the airplane with differential thrust. This is another claim that has a near zero chance of being accurate.

The reality, IMO, is that there are multiple seeming impossibilities with the Whitehead story. I can't buy into the core story if the surrounding stories don't hold water.

As others have pointed out in the thread, if Whitehead's airplane was successful, why no follow-on?

[Hal Bryan]

I offer John J Montgomery as first controlled heavier than air - unpowered. Research this nearly forgotten aviation pioneer.
Golden West Fly In theme this year - On display will be a (hopefully) flying replica of the Santa Clara Glider on display.
jim
http://www.goldenwestflyin.org/News/news%20main%20page.htm

Montgomery was a fascinating guy, and, in my opinion, well worth learning more about. No affiliation, etc., but I can recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Flight-John-Montgomery-Aviation/dp/0806142642

Not to mention William Wellman's slightly-obscure classic movie, Gallant Journey (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039409/). I don't know Montgomery's story well enough to attest to the accuracy, but it's a very enjoyable film.

[Jim Heffelfinger]

JJ Montgonery is indeed quite a character and would have continued developing his designs had he not ventured too fast to earth.
Thanks Hal for the plug of Harwood/Fogle book. Chapter 52 has a big block of this book inhouse for sale at the Golden West event. Chapter member Thom Taylor is the builder of the replica. Much re-engineering has delayed the project and the replica will be incomplete while on display. I will put together an article and photos for pubs.
jim

[Jim Heffelfinger]

You know the internet is amazing - here is the movie - ON YOUTUBE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE-2pviy_4Q

[Bill Greenwood]

I lived in San Diego for a year during which I learned to fly at Montgomery Field, so I know the story of John M. who as a teenager may well have built and flown a controllable hang glider at Otay Mesa southeast of town. It is hard to know for sure, no photos or iron clad proof but a good chance that he did it, and before the Wrights flew theirs.

Of course he didn't have powered controlled flight before the Bros. but unlike some of the other myths who are said to have flown, John M. did go on to develop real flying airplanes, and pretty good ones.

Ironically, if he had known about the rising air currents as the incoming sea breeze flows over the shoreline, he might have soared there. Hang gliders can stay aloft easily at Torrey Pines near La Jolla and there is even a small glider strip there. I did some hang gliding near there myself, great fun.

[Frank Giger]

I hate to be the contrarian, but I find all the claims of controlled flight prior to the Wrights to be dubious in the extreme.

Not that it couldn't have happened, but that it would have been disregarded considering what happened after Kitty Hawk.

The Wright brothers were, gently speaking, jerks of the highest order. Once they flew and got the patents, they immediately stopped building and flying and started suing the crap out of anyone building an airplane with six axis of control.

They even had the hubris to bid to sell the Army aircraft with the condition that they not be given a demonstration until they were paid in full for the contract (which the Army didn't go for).

In Europe the French claimed they were lying (resulting in the first public display of a Wright aircraft); the Germans went through some really circuitous path of obscure academic papers to allow manufacture; the Brits studiously ignored the Wrights, and poor Glen Curtiss spent as much time in court as he did making engines and aircraft in the USA. It is because of the Wrights that the USA flew French planes in WWI, as in the USA aviation was the domain of lawyers and ground to a halt.

It was only after WWI that the federal government stepped in and forced a patent pool on the Wrights to relieve the death stranglehold on the neck of aviation.

If there had been anyone that had produced a credible aircraft before the Wrights, no matter how dodgy the documentation, it would have been jumped on and the inventor brought into court to testify to the fact, no matter how reluctant they might have been.

[rwanttaja]

If there had been anyone that had produced a credible aircraft before the Wrights, no matter how dodgy the documentation, it would have been jumped on and the inventor brought into court to testify to the fact, no matter how reluctant they might have been.
You know, Frank, that's an excellent argument. Most folks are probably aware that, as part of the patent fight, Glenn Curtiss "rebuilt" Sam Langley's Aerodrome in an attempt to show the Wrights weren't first. Surely, if Whitehead's plane worked, that would have been introduced, too. Supposedly, a museum in Connecticut used to have a picture of the plane in flight...in 1910, that picture should still have been around.

Ron Wanttaja

[Adam Smith]

Excellent post Frank.

[Andrew King]

I hate to be the contrarian, but I find all the claims of controlled flight prior to the Wrights to be dubious in the extreme.

Not that it couldn't have happened, but that it would have been disregarded considering what happened after Kitty Hawk.

The Wright brothers were, gently speaking, jerks of the highest order. Once they flew and got the patents, they immediately stopped building and flying and started suing the crap out of anyone building an airplane with six axis of control.

They even had the hubris to bid to sell the Army aircraft with the condition that they not be given a demonstration until they were paid in full for the contract (which the Army didn't go for).

In Europe the French claimed they were lying (resulting in the first public display of a Wright aircraft); the Germans went through some really circuitous path of obscure academic papers to allow manufacture; the Brits studiously ignored the Wrights, and poor Glen Curtiss spent as much time in court as he did making engines and aircraft in the USA. It is because of the Wrights that the USA flew French planes in WWI, as in the USA aviation was the domain of lawyers and ground to a halt.

It was only after WWI that the federal government stepped in and forced a patent pool on the Wrights to relieve the death stranglehold on the neck of aviation.

If there had been anyone that had produced a credible aircraft before the Wrights, no matter how dodgy the documentation, it would have been jumped on and the inventor brought into court to testify to the fact, no matter how reluctant they might have been.

The premise is interesting, but I think there are quite a few inaccuracies in this post. The Wrights flew in '03, '04, and '05, and there were quite a lot of eyewitnesses to their flying especially in '05, and various published accounts. Huffman Prairie was a public place, and if you wanted to go see them fly they couldn't stop you. They stopped flying in '06 and '07 to try to sell their aircraft to the military, but while they insisted on a signed contract before giving a demonstration they did not insist on pre-payment. In '08 they started flying again and flew a lot for a few years (and built a lot of airplanes). They were certainly secretive and stuffy, and litigious, but it's going a bit far to call them jerks. Read their diaries and private writings and you will not have that impression. They were far ahead of everybody else in aviation for the first few years, and believed that they deserved their just reward. While they didn't help aviation much after 1910 I wouldn't feel too sorry for Glenn Curtiss (who certainly would've been more fun to be around!), there was nothing "poor" about him. He made a fortune in aviation, and built plenty of aircraft and engines during that time. "Death stranglehold"? I don't think that's accurate, there was a lot going on in US aviation leading up to WW1, though certainly not the innovations that were going on in Europe. But I don't think you can lay too much of the blame on the Wrights, some would say that the US made some of the same mistakes in the 1930s in the lead-up to WW2 (for instance Europeans held the altitude record from 1932 until 1951, and speed record from 1924 until 1947). The Wrights and many other innovators in aviation and other fields were far from perfect, but everything has to be kept in perspective, and seldom is there a simple story behind the abridged history that is too often taught. It was a great period in history, with great characters and amazing events, and one must be careful about throwing around too many generalisations.

[Stephan Wilkinson]

an airplane with six axis of control.

Six "directions," maybe--up, down, left, right, roll left, roll right--but only three axes: longitudinal, lateral, pitch.

[Frank Giger]

Stephan, you're right - six directions on three axis.

Andrew, I'd say that stranglehold is quite accurate in describing what the Wright brothers had on the neck of aviation in the USA.

There was no serious manufacturing of aircraft in the USA until after WWI. Not that the technology wasn't there - the Europeans were using Wright and Curtiss innovations as much as they came up with their own - but the legal hurdles were too extreme to allow the likes of Nieuport, Sopwith, Albatross, Fokker, or SPAD factories to exist.

One can't say there wasn't an interest in aviation in the USA like there was in Europe as an excuse, either.

Had their tactic been to seek monetary compensation for use of their patents for aircraft produced rather than to demand injunction against manufacture to begin with my opinion of them would be much higher. And it would make more sense, as a company would have assets on which to seek recompense from.

The Wright brothers did fly and put on demonstrations - most famously in France, and mostly as a way of shutting up those who claimed they were lying. And later they did found a flying school here in Alabama (on what is now Maxwell AFB), but at the end of the day they weren't pushing for flying as much as protection of intellectual property.

Curtiss was certainly a PITA; playboy motorcycle racer and engine designers typically are. And yes, he built aircraft and dared the Wright brothers to sue (most boldly about the aileron). However, he was building aircraft and flying them regularly, showcasing them to the public (granted for self-promotion as much as for anything else). I think he delighted in counter-suing them just for the fight of it.

That said, in all the court battles if there had been a credible example of controlled powered flight out there that pre-dated the Wright brothers it would have been jumped on and triumphed around the world - out of jealousy as much as for the money.

[Bill Greenwood]

I agree with one part of what Frank says, that if there was anyone who really flew a controlled powered flight before the Wrights, and could prove it, then they would have likely done so in court when a lot of money was at stake.
And to believe that Whitehead really flew when we have no real photo of it, and no surviving plane or even surviving engines of his; is asking us to have faith beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't agree with Andrew that the Wrights were secretive, they made many flights in public places; people were so set in doubtful ways that they didn't even conceive of what real flight was and didn't want to believe reports of it.

I am sure that if I had invented the airplane, just like any other inventor, like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or Coca Cola, I would patent it and want to profit from my genius and hard work. That is the American way, nothing wrong with that.
Frankly it seems to me that a Curtis aileron is different than wing warping, but the courts repeatedly held that it was only a version of the Wright design and upheld the Wrights patent.

By the way, I just read an article on propellers that said the old 12 foot wooden props of the Wrights were about 80 % efficient and the best ones today are only about 5% better after a 105 years. We should admire the work of two geniuses and not be jealous of it.