วีดีโอ

Judging the sufficiency of the Wright's engine requires a calculation that assimilates factors such as horsepower, torque, gearing, propeller efficiency, coefficients of lift and drag, and others. If you haven't performed any such calculation, then you're only guessing about it's ability to produce the thrust needed by the Flyer. Moreover, the Wrights' flights of 1908 were not powered by a French engine partially designed by Santos-Dumont.

@FernandoACalzzaniJunior wrote: "no light airplane could be kept in air without a engine with less than 25hp, Wright brothers had a 12.5hp engine" SB: How do you account for the fact that the Wright Flyer III with its 8-16 hp. flat four engine flew over 50 miles in front of an invited crowd of 30 in 1905? They did not comply with the 1905 French FAI rules for aviation records. But there is plenty of historical records of the flight. The Wrights did not allow newspapers to publish their photographs so the newspaper articles do not include photos. Capt. Ferber was given the names of 30 witnesses when he visited Dayton in 1905 and he interviewed many of them. He then published 2 articles in the French aviation magazine . . . and tried to convince fellow members of the French Aero-club that the Wright claims were true. REF: The 1902 Wright Glider - photo of 4 axis control. ". . . 256 have flown the Wright glider" PBS 2019. I thought the number would be higher in 2019 since anyone can fly a replica of the Wright glider at Kitty Hawk for a fee in 2024. The tether is attached but not used unless the inexperienced pilot loses control. Critic Brown commented " no photographic evidence of flight in 1903." The photo was not released to the press until 1908. Why would this photograph seen by millions not count as photographic evidence? Another critic said he had never seen a photograph of the 1902 glider flying with 3 axis control. There is a photograph at 1:53 on this video th-cam.com/video/JNf33QMHTm0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/JNf33QMHTm0/w-d-xo.html 1:53 in the 7 min. video.

@@stevebett4947 History already showed us WHO is constantly forcing everybody else to believe in things that are not actually true through marketing to gatter INFLUENCE... You believe what you want, dude.

The fact that you frame this technical topic in nationalistic terms, only reveals your own bias. The accomplishments of Santos-Dumont and the Wrights were the accomplishments of individuals, not countries anyway. No Brazilian or American today shares any credit for them, so the Brazil-versus-US squabbling is nothing more than false pride, and it demeans the legacies of all three men.

@@cardinalRG Both cases are all about hegemony, this is all about geopolitcs, all about narrative, thus domination. Of course I have a bias, so you do too. Despite being individual accomplishments, they are used to inflate national proudness and national is everything USA wants to eliminate in world except its own. I have researched how USA uses this kinda of technique to subjugate other countries. It does not sticky with me anymore, pal

The fact that you frame this technical topic in nationalistic terms, only reflects your own bias, friend. The accomplishments of Santos-Dumont and, for that matter, the Wrights, were the accomplishments of individuals, not nations anyway. No Brazilian or American alive today shares any credit for them, so in my opinion, the whole Brazil-versus-United States squabble demeans the legacies of all three aviation pioneers. To me, the development of the airplane was a human achievement, not a national one, and I wouldn’t care if the first to fly were an eskimo or a Kalahari bushman, or anyone else.

I think myths like that, as well as those regarding other competing aviation pioneers, originate with people seeking to validate a preferred assumption, rather than simply follow evidence to a conclusion. Many people who don’t want the Wrights to have been first, latch onto notions like the catapult-myth and then turn away from any contrary evidence. Frankly, I think a technical topic like this gets muddied mainly because of the nationalistic bias of some Americans, Brazilians, New Zealanders, Indians, and others. Support for native sons is seemingly always disproportionate.

​​​@@cardinalRGExistem fotos do primeiro "voo" com a catapulta, depois, kit hawk naquela época, tinha dunas e por isso, o flyer planou e não voou. Por isso, não conseguiram repetir o feito em 2003, no centenário de voo do mesmo flyer e foi um tremendo fiasco! Porque? Não tinha mais dunas em kit hawk e também, esqueceram a catapulta, simples!

There was no catapult. It does not appear in any of their photographs of their camp. A glider would not have traveled 850 ft forward against that wind in 59 seconds, as Wilbur did on the fourth and final flight. Nobody flew before the Wrights because the Wrights had one thing over everybody else- their propellers. They were the first to design an airfoil shape to their propeller blades, resulting in a much more efficient and effective propulsion system. Santos-Dumont did not fly until he had designed a propeller based on the Wright Brothers' design, which he learned about through Octave Chanute, who did not keep what he knew about the Wrights' designs secret.

@@rescue270 Colonized! Read Aloud The New York Times, December 17, 1951. Page 30 WRIGHT TRIBUTE TODAY Airmen to Mark Anniversary of Kitty Hawk Flight KITTY HAWK. N.C, Dec.16 (U P) - Modern airmen will pay tribute here tomorrow to the forty-eighth anniversary of the Wright Brothers' pioneering airplane flight, but an old-timer who watched the first take-offs said the celebrators have picked the wrong day. Wilbur and Orville Wright are credited with making their first powered flight in a heavier-than-air machine on Dec. 17, 1903. But Alpheus W. Drinkwater, 76 years old, who sent the telegraph message ushering in the air age, said the brothers only "glided" off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908, he said. It was on that day, that Wilbur Wright declared the airplane was a mighty fine contraption, but predicted it would never carry enough gasoline to span an ocean. Regardless of his quibble with aeronautics historians; Mr. Drinkwater will be on hand for the celebration tomorrow. The first flight will be marked by flights of jet planes, helicopters and huge cargo planes. www.nytimes.com/1951/12/17/archives/wright-tribute-today-airmen-to-mark-anniversary-of-kitty-hawk.html

Oh well, the modern airplane looks EXACTLY like Demoiselle. With 12hp, no airplane could be kept in air for longer than a paper airplane...Do your homework before talking about what you don't know, dude.

While Santos-Dumont claimed that he did not borrow anything from Lawrence Hargrave, the inventor of the box kite with a cambered control surface, the builder of Alberto's prototype readily admitted his debt to Hargrave. The plane had v-shaped box kite wings to maximize lift and stability. I had ailerons and a front rudder but they may not have been functional. In the photographs and films, the ailerons appear to be fluttering and the front rudder locked in its maximum position. The look-alike replica created and flown by Alan Calassa certainly had 3-axis control. Some of the small models could demonstrate 3-axis control in no-wind conditions. It original BIS-14 was not a practical flying machine but it was certainly a rigid wing craft consistent with the D-Archdeacon contest rules. REF: PBS NOVA program Wings of madness: Transcript: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3316_santos.html Santos Dumont Program: th-cam.com/video/3NWFFSx5lSE/w-d-xo.html Orville@wright-brothers.org April 28 2019 wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Santos_Dumont/Santos_Dumont.htm Builders of the BIS-14 air-frame and engine. Both were made according to Alberto's specs. The V-8 aero-engine was built by Lavavasseur and the wheeled airframe was built by ... and based on his flying boat glider. Invited to comment:

You’re exaggerating. It isn’t the “whole world” versus Brazil. There are many outside of Brazil that claim primacy for Santos Dumont, and likely more world citizens who aren’t aware of the historical issue or the personalities, and don’t have any opinion at all. There are also Brazilians who support the claim for the Wrights’ primacy. Your blanket labeling of those who support the claim for Santos Dumont as simply “brainwashed”, is an asinine, condescending stereotype. That you disallow that a Brazilian might think independently with an open mind, but simply disagree with you on the evidence, only reveals your own bias and closed-mindedness.

@@cardinalRG There are evidence for Wright's flight in 1903, in 1904 and 1905. All of these are before Dumont's power leaps from 1906. There is nothing to disagree about.

Why don’t you try calming yourself down, setting aside the chest-beating and the national/cultural bias, and making an evidence-based case for Santos Dumont? It is a technical topic after all, and you should be able to make your argument on a technical basis. Also, use normal case please...all-CAPS comes off as shouting in print.

@@cardinalrg5114 do you want something technically based? so come on. "FIRST AVIATION RECORD OF THE WORLD" signed by Ernest Archdeacon in 1906 and the event is immortalized in a monument in Bagatelle France. It was the first official record of the FAI and for your knowledge, I would like to point out, look on the FAI website for the record related to Dumont, FAI STATES THAT DUMONT WAS THE FIRST MAN IN THE WORLD AND HISTORY TO "TAKE OFF". You know that the base of the plane is the ability to take off. continuing our technical analysis: Dumont filmed,registered and photographed the event, All the most important newspapers in the world at that time, obviously this already helped to calm your soul too, as the first record and the first plane was from Dumont, as for the wrights, everything was registered and proven only in 1908.

It's funny that the WHOLE WORLD acknowledges the Wright brothers as the true inventors of controlled powered flight on December of 1903. EXCEPT the brain-washed residents of Brazil (due to authortarian propaganda). Dumont however did make meaningful contributions and 3 years after the Wright, he did get airborn (1906).

@@clearviewtechnical present here only one publication between 1903-1905 with the flight report and photos of the flight in the publication. It can be a magazine or newspaper. remember, you must have the flight report and the photos of this flight. if you do this I agree with your statements. If you don't, you'll miss it too, as Dumont has the record for it and immortalized in a monument in Bagatelle with this inscription FIRST AVIATION RECORD OF THE WORLD. bye Bye

Hi mate you are not supposed to lie the true it’s the other way around

@@marcio4u123 --I'm interested to hear your argument for the primacy of Santos Dumont.

@@cardinalrg5114 please pay attention to the Americans experts for a estate tv talking about Santos Dumont it can not be unbiased than that and NASA given a name to a creator on the moon not to the white brothers so I hope it’s make sense

@@marcio4u123 --Sorry, your comment isn’t clear in English. Perhaps you might try translation software? Otherwise thanks for trying, all the same.

@@cardinalrg5114 yeah yeah very convenient your excuse I will try Chinese next time , just watch the documentary properly if will

Good point. I wonder how it could be tested. At one time I am sure there were audio tapes of his speeches in Portuguese. Not sure how many survived.

Fabio Mendonça -- _”I honestly don’t understand who came up with the idea to put Santos Dumont with a french accent…”_ I agree that it’s very silly. _”It’s time to re-write history…”_ Friend, the phrase _re-write history_ means to obfuscate or distort history. History itself is immutable. I think you mean to re-write the history books, or otherwise revise the way that history is taught. _”…allegedly have flown a catapulted contraption off of a dune…”_ The earliest Wright flights (1903) did not use a catapult. _”…unlike SD 14-bis, which, inspite of its clumsiness, can be flown with identical replicas today.”_ None of the flying 14bis replicas are identical to the original, nor near to it. The closest to authenticity is the admirable Calassa version, but even it has many upgraded features including a modern Rotax engine, and a modern propeller whose lineage itself connects back the pioneering work of the Wrights. _”…he was the first man to fly a heavier than air machine, according to the international rules at the time (agreed upon even by the US) that flight had to be SELF PROPELLED, from FLAT GROUND, which neither one can be said about the Write flyer.”_ To begin with, any recognition by an oversight body is fundamentally an _official_ one, which does not necessarily equate to primacy. It is well understood in athletics, science and many other fields, that legitimate achievements can occur before _official_ recognition comes. Second, to argue for the legitimacy of official recognition, one has to argue for the authority of the source. Can you make the case that the _Federation Aéronautique Internationale (FAI)_ was the exclusive authority for all accomplishments, in all parts of the Earth, for all time…or must you acknowledge that this was an arbitrary claim to authority? Lastly, you are mistaken about the 1903 Wright Flyer, because it was self-propelled and took off from level ground. I encourage you to research the facts of this machine and, for that matter, the 14bis too. _”The Demoiselle, SD second craft is unquestionably the grandfather of all modern aircraft, not the Write Flyer.”_ Friend, no subjective opinion is un-questionable. The claim that (2+2=4) is unquestionable, but metaphors such as “grandfather” aren’t. _”That is a fact I dare anyone to disput from an engineer stand point.”_ No engineering needed. I just corrected you from a logical and semantic standpoint. _”It’s about time he is brought back to his rightful place in history.”_ _“Rightful…”_ I don’t criticize your strong sentiment regarding this topic, but I don’t share it either. It’s of no importance to me who did what first, it only matters what the technical accomplishments were, and both Santos Dumont and the Wrights were great contributors to the advancement of flight. I’ve made comments here only from an interest in clarity, and in defending the Wrights and their endeavors against mischaracterizations-such as those you’ve made. I do the same for Santos Dumont when people unfairly attack his achievements.

The Wrights filed their patent for controlled flight in 1905. That is a year before Dumont's flight.