Smithsonian kinda, sorta admits to a lie

From: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105513,00.html

The Smithsonian Institution (search) is celebrating the 100th anniversary of
the Wright Brothers' first flight with a Web presentation and the grand
opening of a new branch of the National Air and Space Museum.
The tribute is ironic as the Smithsonian spent 28 years denying the Wrights
credit for the first flight in favor of promoting the dubious legacy of one
of its own.

The dark saga is extensively documented in Fred Howard's book, "Wilbur and
Orville: A Biography of the Wright Brothers" (Dover, 1987) - but it isn't
even alluded to in the Smithsonian's "tribute."

Samuel Langley, the former head of the Smithsonian Institution, had
researched flight for 12 years before the Wrights began their work in 1899.

Underwritten by a $50,000 War Department contract, Langley tested an
airplane on Oct. 7, 1903. Resembling a giant dragonfly, the "Aerodrome"
(search) was 54 feet long and had two 48-foot wings.

When launched from a houseboat on the Potomac River, the Aerodrome "simply
slid into the water like a handful of mortar," reported observers. The
effort was so dismal the New York Times editorialized that one million to 10
million years would be needed to develop an airplane.

After another failure on Dec. 8, Langley blamed faulty launch equipment -
not his design. The discouraged War Department ended the project.

Nine days later, the Wrights flew their airplane 100 feet in 12 seconds -
seemingly, straight into the history books.

By 1908, the Wrights owned a general airplane patent in the United States
and Europe and aggressively enforced their rights with lawsuits. Their
principal U.S. foe was aircraft manufacturer Glenn Curtiss, who repeatedly
lost court battles with the Wrights between 1910 and 1914.

In early 1914, Curtiss met with Albert Zahm, one of his former expert
witnesses, who had just become the head of the Smithsonian's Langley
Aerodynamical Laboratory - the Aerodrome's custodian.

Zahm suggested rebuilding and retesting the Aerodrome to see if Langley's
design was capable of flight had it not been thwarted by the supposedly
faulty launching equipment. If it could be shown that the Aerodrome was
capable of flight first, then a court might limit the Wright patent.

Smithsonian chief Charles Walcott, a friend of Langley's and a supporter of
his Aerodrome project, agreed to this "restoration" scheme, cloaking his
approval in historical and aeronautical safety rationale. Walcott then
commissioned Curtiss - hardly a disinterested party - to rebuild and test
the Aerodrome!

Curtiss went far beyond restoring the Aerodrome's original design. Engine
parts were changed. The propellers and wings were enhanced. Pontoons were
added to replace Langley's houseboat-launch set-up.

Curtiss' reconstructed Aerodrome wasn't Langley's original Aerodrome, at
all.

At a May 1914 test flight, the Smithsonian's Zahm reported that the
"restored" Aerodrome "rose in level poise, soared gracefully for 150 feet
and landed softly on the water."

The New York Times, however, reported the news differently - "observers who
watched the proceedings from the shore failed to see that the machine rose
at all from the water."

Two photos were taken of the Aerodrome with its pontoons just above the
water's surface at a subsequent test in June 1914. No time or distance
estimates were recorded for the "flight."

Curtiss then lured Orville - Wilbur had died in 1912 - into filing another
infringement suit in November 1914.

As evidence of the Aerodrome's capacity for flight, Curtiss used the
Smithsonian's annual report for 1914 in which Zahm described the Aerodrome
as the "first man-carrying aeroplane capable of sustained free flight." The
report included the photos of the Aerodrome aloft, maintaining the machine
was unmodified.

But the Curtiss-Smithsonian scheme didn't impress the court, which upheld
the Wright patent. Curtiss' defeat, however, didn't end the Smithsonian's
effort to deny the Wrights' claim to fame.

In 1918, the Smithsonian restored the Aerodrome to its original 1903
condition and displayed it in the museum with the label, "The first
man-carrying aeroplane in the history of the world capable of sustained free
flight. Invented, built, and tested over the Potomac River by Samuel
Pierpont Langley in 1903. Successfully flown at Hammondsport, N.Y., June 2,
1914."

"It was a lie pure and simple, but it bore the imprimatur of the venerable
Smithsonian and over the years would find its way into magazines, history
books, and encyclopedias, much to the annoyance of those familiar with the
facts," wrote Fred Howard in "Wilbur and Orville."

The lie lasted 25 years.

Angered at the Smithsonian, Orville sent the 1903 Flyer to the Science
Museum in London in 1928.

In 1942, a new Smithsonian regime finally retracted its Aerodrome claims and
privately acknowledged wronging the Wrights. The 1903 Flyer was finally
repatriated and installed in the Smithsonian in December 1948 - 11 months
after Orville's death.

All isn't forgiven, though the Smithsonian apparently wants the controversy
forgotten.

The Smithsonian's centennial Web presentation doesn't mention scheming with
Curtiss or denying the Wright Brothers' preeminence in flight.

Seeming to maintain some institutional grudge, the Smithsonian portrays
Curtiss as an innocent "target" of the Wrights' "litigiousness."

If only the Aerodrome's propellers had that kind of spin.

The Smithsonian describes itself as a "vital center for research into the
history, science, and technology of aviation." Sadly, instead of presenting
the unvarnished history of flight, the museum seems as committed as ever to
its historical flight from the truth.


--
Jim Fisher

One interesting thing about Langley's Aerodrome was that it's engine weight
was about the same as the Wright's but it produced roughtly 90 horsepower.
Imagine Langley's engine on Wright's aircraft! Too bad the Wrights didn't
accept Langley's offer to listen to his speech at the SI. I believe the
Wright's response was "we appreciate the offer however we feel that we will
be much too involved with other projects to attend." Lesson #1: Never be so
busy that you fail to accept an invitation into the world of your
competitor, you never know what you may find.

My personal opinion of the Wrights is much less than what will be created by
the press in the up coming weeks. I think that the 2 greatest things that
they gave aviation were "controllability" and the efficient propeller, after
that I honestly don't know if they contributed much.

Several Austrailian websites claim that it was the Aussy's who made the
first powered flight, who ever it was doesn't even interest me, so many
people were working on the same basic idea at the same time that it was
bound to happen.

One area that I feel that the Wrights could of acted better was with their
lawsuits with Curtiss. I will grant you that if you invent something, you
should have the right to patent and protect it, then ultimately profit from
your efforts. I feel like they kind of acted like a dog in the manger after
their initial success while others picked up the ball and made advancements.
I would be prouder of the Wrights if they would have continued to work for
the pure advancement of aviation. If they had maybe they would have
actually realized their goals of profitting from their achievements such as
Curtiss ultimately did.

The basic idea of sustained, powered, and controlled flight, in my mind, was
more of a discovery than an invention. A discovery that should have been
not only shared with the world, but a discovery that should have been freely
encouraged to grow and expand. Although at the time "wing warping" was new
age rocket science, thank god we weren't limited to it and it alone. Maybe
the Wrights biggest accomplishment was indeed their patents and lawsuits
surrounding "wing warping" for it allowed the world to move on to bigger and
better things while one brother withered and died and the other let his mind
go idle.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

In a previous article, "Jim" said:
Imagine Langley's engine on Wright's aircraft! Too bad the Wrights didn't
accept Langley's offer to listen to his speech at the SI. I believe the

If they had, I bet the Smithsonian would *still* be claiming that they
used Langley's ideas to achieve their first flight.

Several Austrailian websites claim that it was the Aussy's who made the
first powered flight, who ever it was doesn't even interest me, so many
people were working on the same basic idea at the same time that it was
bound to happen.

There are lots of claimants. The difference is that without
controllability and without further development, they did their flights
and put the craft back in the barn, and the science of flight got
absolutely nothing out of their so-called achievements. The Wrights
started with barely controlled hops and a few years later were flying
figure 8 courses and staying aloft of hours at a time.

The course of advancement of the science of flight stretches in an
unbroken line through Lilenthal through the Wrights and up to today. It
doesn't include all the pretenders to the throne who did little and
contributed nothing.

One area that I feel that the Wrights could of acted better was with their
lawsuits with Curtiss. I will grant you that if you invent something, you

True. There is a good reason why after the Wrights went public, most
aviation development started happening in Europe.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Zero Tolerance" in this case meaning "We're too stupid to be able to
apply conscious thought on a case-by-case basis".
-- Mike Sphar

Jim, I'm too lazy to actually do the research, but I strongly question the
90 hp at/near the same weight as the Wright's engine... My recomember is
that Langly's engine, while a true engineering marvel for the time, was a
radial engine developing a bit under 60 horsepower at ~240 pounds ~4
pounds per horsepower... this was astounding for 1903
My recomember on the Wright engine of the 1903 flyer was about the weight of
a man, ~180 pounds, and ~16 horses, or roughly 12 pounds per horsepower...
Certainly if the Wrights and Langly had cooperated, and had they access to
Langly's $50,000 grant (an astronomical sum in todays dollars) flight would
have been moved forward a couple of years and progressed more rapidly...
That however, is not how the world works..
Denny
"Jim" wrote in message
...
One interesting thing about Langley's Aerodrome was that it's engine
weight
was about the same as the Wright's but it produced roughtly 90 horsepower.

Hey Denny,
You know I think I had a dyslexic fit and typed 90 meaning 60. I do believe
you are correct and agree with you on the weight and the hp of the Wright
engine. I think that even if they never got any of Langley's grant money,
they might have had even more success if they had been more open minded and
at least viewed Langley's aircraft (if you can call it that) and it's
engine. The Wrights seemed to have a wonderful ability to take current
ideas or inventions and then re-think them either improving on them beyond
belief i.e.: wings, propellers, gliders, even bicycles or creating things
out of pure effort and imagination. I'm surprised that they didn't realize
this unique gift and welcome every opportunity to visit, observe, and study
other peoples efforts.

--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:49:41 -0600, "Jim"
wrote:

My personal opinion of the Wrights is much less than what will be created by
the press in the up coming weeks. I think that the 2 greatest things that
they gave aviation were "controllability" and the efficient propeller, after
that I honestly don't know if they contributed much.

The Wright brothers also invented a highly effective wind tunnel for
testing different wing types and shapes. In effect, they took a
highly rigorous, scientific approach to achieving flight.

Several Austrailian websites claim that it was the Aussy's who made the
first powered flight, who ever it was doesn't even interest me, so many
people were working on the same basic idea at the same time that it was
bound to happen.

Brazilian Santos-Dumont (sp?) is also credited for flying first. I
wouldn't even doubt that many of these people really did fly. But the
real issue was whether it was controlled flight. Uncontrolled flight,
such as that done by hot air ballooning is a much older achievement.

One area that I feel that the Wrights could of acted better was with their
lawsuits with Curtiss. I will grant you that if you invent something, you
should have the right to patent and protect it, then ultimately profit from
your efforts. I feel like they kind of acted like a dog in the manger after
their initial success while others picked up the ball and made advancements.
I would be prouder of the Wrights if they would have continued to work for
the pure advancement of aviation. If they had maybe they would have
actually realized their goals of profitting from their achievements such as
Curtiss ultimately did.

You know, with every major advancement in technology, there seem to be
a slew of early lawsuits disputing intellectual property. The early
days of radio had the famous DeForest versus Armstrong patent cases in
which Armstrong actually lost despite the fact that DeForest was
unable to demonstrate that he understood his own patents in court.
Despite this, DeForest was able to "win" on a technicality and
invalidate Armstrong's patents.

Look at all the ridiculous patents issued for hyperlinking and other
such areas of prior art. And now look at what the Wright Brothers
went through.

See my point?


Jake Brodsky,
PP ASEL IA, Cessna Cardinal N30946, Based @ FME
Amateur Radio Station AB3A

Cooperating was neither their nature, nor Langley's... We could have no more
mixed the three together than oil and water... The Wright's were only able
to work with each other... Even their engine builder, Charley whatzhisname,
said they were a bit strange... Genius does not march to the 'lets all be
social' beat...
Langly needed the hard headed engineering of them to take his good ideas and
strip away the victorian gingerbread that doomed his aerodromes... The
Wright's could have really used his engine builder - but there is no way
they would been able to pay the bills for what he spent on Langley's
engine...

Ain't hind sight wunnerful?

Denny

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Hey Denny,
I think that even if they never got any of Langley's grant money,
they might have had even more success if they had been more open minded
and
at least viewed Langley's aircraft (if you can call it that) and it's
engine.

Yip, 'tis beautiful From what I found on the web, the engine was a 5
cylinder Balzer rotary modified by Charles Manly and produced anywhere from
45-55hp depending on the source with most saying 52hp. Something I found
suprising was that Balzer had invented a working reliable light weight
radial engine 10 years before the Wrights flight, surely the Wrights must
have known about these engines, maybe not.

I agree with you on the type of people they were. I suppose that the
Wrights may have thought that to show up at Langley's SI Lecture would some
how admit defeat? Dunno, but they should have at least sent a spy!
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Cooperating was neither their nature, nor Langley's... We could have no
more
mixed the three together than oil and water... The Wright's were only
able
to work with each other... Even their engine builder, Charley
whatzhisname,
said they were a bit strange... Genius does not march to the 'lets all be
social' beat...
Langly needed the hard headed engineering of them to take his good ideas
and
strip away the victorian gingerbread that doomed his aerodromes... The
Wright's could have really used his engine builder - but there is no way
they would been able to pay the bills for what he spent on Langley's
engine...

Ain't hind sight wunnerful?

Denny

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:49:41 -0600, "Jim" wrote
in Message-Id: :

One interesting thing about Langley's Aerodrome was that it's engine weight
was about the same as the Wright's but it produced roughtly 90 horsepower.

Unfortunately, Langley's was a steam engine! Imagine stoking the
furnace of your Cessna. :-)

However, Glen Curtiss was a wizard with internal combustion gasoline
engines. It was his 80 HP engine that permitted him to nose out
Bleriot in France and win the speed prize. And, as is quite evident
today, his use of ailerons was vastly superior to the Wright's wing
warping for controllability. In all, Curtiss's designs out performed
the Wright's by a considerable margin, but there's no doubt that
refining an existing design commands nowhere the respect as developing
the original.

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Cooperating was neither their nature, nor Langley's... We could have no
more
mixed the three together than oil and water... The Wright's were only
able
to work with each other... Even their engine builder, Charley
whatzhisname,
said they were a bit strange... Genius does not march to the 'lets all be
social' beat...

Think of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
DeBeers Advertisements:
"A Diamond is Forever!"
then...
"Diamonds - Take Her Breath Away!"
then still...
"Diamonds- Render Her Speechless!"
Why don't they just come out and say it: "Diamonds - That'll shut her up!"