To balance wieght of engine in another side pilot is supposed to be at that position Also by this they devided wieght of airplane to get frther stability
there was never any evidence that the brothers flew before Dumont. the truth is in that American magazine. the brothers have an eighth place among the pioneers of motorized flight.
@Vihangam Drishti the only problem is that all talpade, wright brothers and others had too much time to prove everything before Dumont and chances they all had. nothing was ever done publicly, nothing was presented, nothing was officially registered. Dumont actually won them all.
@Vihangam Drishti It's here, it's the monument to Dumont in Paris. Zoom in and you will see. FIRST AVIATION RECORD OF THE WORLD .pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Vol_de_Santos-Dumont.JPG
@Vihangam Drishti Sorry, Guy, this monument has been in Paris for a long time and the record for Dumont has also been there for a long time by the greatest aeronautical authority in the world. Talpade and all the other fraudsters With motorized gliders that did nothing and never tried, did not shoot, did not photograph anything, in fact they did not achieve more than jumps in the air totally dependent on the contrary wind. Dumont was innovation, it was motorized flight.
@Vihangam Drishti calm, gay, you don't have to be nervous about not having anything official. study, research, maybe you will find some document with photos that prove something because for now it's like the wright brothers, it's just talk and paper. This never proved that they were on a machine.
@@michaelgentiluomo5385 SORRY to disappoint you, we can't go to Mars and the moon landing was probably a CIA Hollywood operation to wind over allies over Russia, it was either them or us, the cold war remember? easier to fake than to actually get there or worse, failing trying.
The first real flight was performed by Alberto Santos - Dumont, who built a real proper plane which would take off unassisted. Even a rock can "fly" when tossed by a catapult lol The plane 14 bis gave birth to modern aviation.
@brasileiros Silva Pictures from May 1908, The Wrights brothers' plane caught flying low in front of a tall sand dune The images can be found here, (L'Aerophile, 1 July 1908 gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f260.image.r=wright.langEN ). They still glided down the slope. How can I believe that the two brothers were able to fly about 40 minutes in 1905 in Dayton, Ohio over a flat pasture if they still needed a hill and strong winds to fly in May 1908. In a letter published in L'Aerophile, in which the two brothers gave technical details about all their claimed flights in May 1908, they also specified the wind speed as being between 4 and 9 m/s. (see L'Aerophile 15 June 1908, gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f232.image.r=wright%20mai.langEN ).
@@gilberto2056 Silly boy, the Aero Club of America, Aero Club de France, the Federation Aeronautique Internatioinale, Octave Chenault, Ferdinand Ferber, and the French Government all certified the Wrights as having flown in 1903. The December 1905 and January 1906 issues of L'Aerophile documented the Wrights' successful flights at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina and Dayton, Ohio. In point of fact, it was L'Aerophile's reportage of the Wrights that motivated Santos Dumont to cease experimentation with lighter-than-air aircraft and instead concentrate on heavier-than-air aircraft. Why do you accuse the French of lying? Why do you hate France?
@brasileiros Silva Silly boy, the Aero Club of America, Aero Club de France, the Federation Aeronautique Internatioinale, Octave Chenault, Ferdinand Ferber, and the French Government all certified the Wrights as having flown in 1903. The December 1905 and January 1906 issues of L'Aerophile documented the Wrights' successful flights at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina and Dayton, Ohio. In point of fact, it was L'Aerophile's reportage of the Wrights that motivated Santos Dumont to cease experimentation with lighter-than-air aircraft and instead concentrate on heavier-than-air aircraft. Why do you accuse the French of lying? Why do you hate France?
Or you look at Richard Pearses aircraft that flew before these clowns and actually used ailerons and elevators. No one is flying with wing warping or any of that nonsense now are they.
@@Flying_GC Witness accounts indicate that Pearse may have been working on a flying machine before 1904, although he stated that he began in February-March 1904. Pearse, R. W. (10 May 1915). "Who Invented the Aeroplane?". The Evening Star (15799): p. 2 The Wright Brothers made the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft with the Wright Flyer on December 17, 1903, 4 mi (6 km) south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.
forget it, boy, they've already proven that if this shit is built in its original conditions, no one will fly. they never made it to the plane before 1908. The two shammers searched in 1907 the full description of Dumont's machine and after a year and a half they appeared flying. the flights between 1903-1905 BB have never been proven to have taken place
Boy, who should present the evidence that they flew before Dumont is you!! You have the official documents!! those documents that they between 1903-05 could have registered a thousand times before the Highest AERONAUTICAL AUTHORITY of the Paris Air Club era that existed since 1898!! do you have the evidence? PRESENT HERE PLEASE
Wilbur Wright did not 'drop out' of high school. He completed the curriculum, but due to his family relocating at about the time of his graduation, he never received his diploma. Orville DID drop out after completing 3 years of high school. This would have been noteworthy these days, but back then is was pretty common, and both brothers would have been considered fairly well educated.
Exactly. Their father was highly educated and had a great library in this home. Their mother was evidently a mechanical wizard. Their sister taught high school Latin and English and had graduated high school and Oberlin Academy/College. Looks like a high functioning family.
I believe they received a much better education in high school than most high school graduates today. And in many ways, many college graduates. They knew basic scientific principles, like collecting systematic data from their wind tunnel experiments.
Informal education is way more important for innovation. Educational system is flat, biased and so on. It is a good background but do not count only on it.
Kyon pel raha hai.Cheel, kawaun ya Hans jotne se viman udta hai.Viman Shasta ki copy dikhade.Viman Shasta print kyon nahi hua Sankrit mein. Dinassaur ke avshesh miley hain.Oldcoin bhi milta hein, old utensils milta hein, old bees,bodies, old swords, arrows sab milta hein phir old viman kahan gayab ho gaye. Unka avshesh kahan hai.India mein tab kerosene petrol 16 ya 17 century tak nahi tha phir viman kya season ke oil se udte they
A reason that has not been considered is to keep the engine as far away from the pilot as possible. Capt. Ferber lost his life when he was crushed by the engine which was located directly behind him. Had he been flying a Wright 2 Model A, he would have probably survived. There have been several Wright replica crashes that are quite similar to Ferber's ill fated flight. All attempted to make a bank and turn from a low altitude and dug a wing into the ground. The pilots of the Wright replicas walked away unscathed.
Impressive feat of innovation to me was they (including their machinist Charlie Taylor) built their engine design from scratch, with an aluminum block in just a few weeks!
AND - they camouflaged their secret aluminum design with a “ faux “ black sheet metal cover to conceal their idea !!! TODAY - GM , Ford , etc continues to do this on their “ proving grounds “ for newly designed cars ! Bla ha ha ! Let’s not leave THAT tidbit out ! Love it ! Right ?
Their true genius was what they invented before they invented the 1903 Flyer. It was the first-ever wind tunnel, where they tested everything else rigorously.
Lie. The first wind tunnel developed by Pour la Cour in 1891. Wilbur Wright was only ten years old at this time. And the plane was invented by Santos Dumont in 1906 who took off and landed using the power of his plane's engine...In 1903 the Wrights just glided. The Flyer weighed 340 kl and the engine only had 12 hp. No haved power to decorate. US history is a festival of lies.
@@moisesgoncalves9898that’s crazy bro, yet the Wright brothers had 3 versions of their plane and a patent already submitted before Santos flew his first one. Better yet the Wright brothers could also sustain flight for half an hour with full control while Santos could only go straight for 700 feet. Not to mention the Wright brothers planes could be reused multiple times before being damaged.
There were lots of people designing and "flying" airplanes before the Wright brothers...but the Wright brothers were the first to have a "controlled" flight, meaning they were able to control the pitch, roll and yaw of the aircraft.
As far as i know it was the first powered flight. Not the first controlled. There where lots of controlled gliders before that. But this is the first "construction" with an engine.
@@billy5179 the 1st powered real flight was done by Santos Dumont in his 14BIS, even the Scientific American journal at the time recognized that. Issue of 8th of November, 1906
The Wright's had a weight limit for the engine and thought they needed only 8 hp. Their home-made aluminum block 4 cyl. engine was ingenious. By 1906, they had an air-frame that could handle a heavier engine. Not sure why they did not try the 40+ hp radial engine that Langley used. Instead, they used an improved variant of their original engine with almost twice the displacement. This was the engine they arranged for a French company to produce for their anticipated European built Wright Flyers.
The Wright Brother were self-taught aeronautical engineers but they didn't know squatoosh about internal combustion engines. The engine was designed and built by Charles Taylor, a mechanic who worked in the Brothers' bicycle shop in Dayton. Taylor also built the wind tunnel that was so instrumental in the brothers developing a successful wing design and assisted them in testing wing designs and developing lift data. He also ran the bike shop for months at a time while the Brothers were off in Kitty Hawk testing their designs. Charlie Taylor is an almost forgotten hero in the history of aviation.
Angular momentum is a important factor in bicycle design. All bicycles in early 20th century have two heavy steel rims, so no doubt Wright brothers know it well. They are educated by angular momentum on every single day.
These guys were beasts! Their plane was the reverse of today's prop planes. Elevator in front of the big wings and props in the back. It also had no rudder, as there was no tail. This plane was not at all easy to control, especially that hip assembly for wing warping. The wing warp idea came about when one of the brothers was fiddling around with an empty bike tire tube box and noticed how it distorted when he twisted it diagonally. Also amazing is that those 2 wooden props were cut by hand using a draw knife, yet achieved 87% efficiency!
See, in the table below, the data published by the North American magazine "National Aeronautics", official body of the "National Aeronautics Association" in Washington: Pilot Location Date Flight time Santos Dumont Bagatelle 12/11/1906 21 ” Henri Farman Issy le Moulineaux 11/26/1907 52 ” L éon Delagrange Champ de Mars 11/04/1908 6’30 ” H enri Farman Issy le Moulineaux 06/07/1908 29’53 ” Léon Delagrange Issy le Moulineaux 09/06/1908 20’19 For many years, these official figures have been published without any dispute. In the American magazine "Reader’s Digest" of December 1942, we found an article entitled "Santos Dumont, Father of Aviation", condensed from the magazine "Air Facts". From page 54 we transcribe the following excerpt: “in 1906 he gave the world the first public demonstration of flight in a device heavier than air (the Wright brothers only came to fly publicly in 1908)”.
SB: Not sure that there first attempts to carve a prop were successful. A test on one found in museum showed that it was defective. It produced more Drag than Thrust when the RPM was over 300 rpm. They could test small airfoils in their wind tunnel. It was not large enough to test an 8 ft. rotating prop. The best they could do was a static test of thrust using their machine shop motor. On site, they used a spring scale for a static test of Thrust. They were pleasantly surprised to find that their prop produced more thrust than it did in their calculations. The Wright Propellers Hyde started by bringing wooden propellers, hand crafted to the Wright specifications, to the NASA Langley Full Scale Tunnel, owned by NASA Langley and operated by ODU. Then he progressed to authentic reproductions of two Wright gliders and then, earlier this year, the Wright Flyer. All were tested by ODU engineering professors and students. SB: Were they 20 years ahead of their time? Not convinced that the first props were 87% efficient. I think that Hyde had his props tested at the NASA wind tunnel in Virginia. I think they were about 82% efficient at around 300 rpm and 35 mph. A prop on a museum flyer replica was tested and found to produce more Drag than Thrust. This seems like a good way to get rid of defective props because the museum replicas are not expected to fly. Wright Props - www.researchgate.net/publication/237462889_Evolution_of_Wright_Flyer_Propellers_between_1903_and_1912_ "The Wright propellers were 20 years ahead of their time," said Professor Robert Ash, Wright test program manager for ODU. "They were able to convert engine power into thrust with the efficiency required to enable a small and heavy gasoline engine to propel the Wright Flyer. The December 17, 1903, flight was not possible without the Wright propeller designs and this contribution has been largely overlooked." www.loc.gov/collections/wilbur-and-orville-wright-papers/articles-and-essays/the-wilbur-and-orville-wright-timeline-1846-to-1948/1901-to-1910/ SB: I don't think it has been overlooked. It has been over-simplified. Without a large wind tunnel, it was very difficult to carve a prop that matched their theory for how it should be done.
@@gilberto2056 Give it a rest, there were no "certifying organizations" in 1903, which is why there is no "official record" of the Wright brothers first flight. The Wright brothers created the need for those to be founded.
@@gilberto2056 I have a question for you . If Santos Dumont, living in France, built the first successful airplane, why did the French Government buy the Wright’s plane and not Dumont’s?
@@gilberto2056 Rubbish, If you want public flights try Huffman Prairie in 1905, right beside a trolleybus route with flights exceeding half an hour. /as others point out, the official body didn't exist when the Wrights first flew.
Lockler is right. There were dozens of people trying to produce a practical airplane. Had the Wrights not done it, someone else would have in less than 6 years. The 1903 prototype had dozens of problems. The Wrights did not consider it to be a practical airplane but the test flight indicated they were on the right track. By the end of 1905 they thought they had all the data they needed and stopped flying. They were so sure of themselves that they came up with a more robust design and built a stronger motor, the 1906 Taylor-Wright upright 4. This new prototype was never tested because they were certain it would fly. They built at least 3 copies of this design. One they shipped to France in 1907. The other was built to demonstrate at Ft....., Virginia for the Army. The third was a back-up.
I don't even think that they had to figure out everything on their own. Remember, at least 500 years before, Leonardo Da'Vinci was trying to make his own flying machine. Who knows how many inventors before and since have tried. All the had to do was take ideas that already exist and rearrange them until they got the "Wright" formula.
@@blackbway AM: "All the had to do was take ideas that already exist and rearrange them." SB: Of course they didn't have to figure out everything on their own. The problem was that much of the conventional wisdom was not that accurate. Until 1908, everyone else had accepted the Cayley's model that the task was to find a way to achieve stability on the analogy of a ship in a sea of air. The Wrights had a different analogy which enabled others to make spectacular advances. They were not concerned with stability. They were concerned with controllability. Their analogy was a bike rider on a bike.
Excellent video. Great detailed explanation. These guys were brilliant engineers, despite no formal training. They used their knowlege of bicycle design in many areas. I read they did extensive testing and took meticulous notes on every detail.
I find it interesting that you are astonished that "7th grade dropouts" could be elegant engineers. Anyone with curiosity can learn. You don't have to sit in a class to figure things out. We call them autodidacts (self taught). R. G. LeTourneau was one such man. Take a look at the movie "October Sky" to see someone learn principles of physics on his lunch hour, at a picnic bench in a coal mine. Curiosity and determination make the engineer. He will self educate if needs be. These men were gifted, in spite of their formal education, they excelled. Any one can. See also Thomas A. Edison (attended school for 12 weeks), Henry Ford (self taught watch repairman) Our history was shaped by such informally educated people.
Ya I totally agree and the message could be: "They were dedicated and willing to do things differently, something anyone can do, and this is what they came up with"
Sorry guy, but that mindset, while pervasive, is not really true. Ford was a great businessman, not an engineer. He did not engineer anything, he just found a really good way to -be incredibly racist- sell cars. Edison again, was a good businessman, who was extremely litigious and cutthroat. He famously took credit for the achievements of his team of engineers, as well as trying to smear people like Tesla and Swan. I haven't heard of R.G. LeTourneau before now, but given that when I google him everything that comes up is some evangelical website, (and that the Wikipedia article references mostly sources made by his descendants) it makes me rather suspicious. Also the guy was massively racist so I seriously doubt he's much different to the likes of Ford. The Wrights, again, are known in actual engineering circles as not really all that great engineers, but malicious businessmen. What do all these people have in common? Money to afford good PR, and a willingness to be utter assholes to competitors and the people who actually did the work.
I have actually gone through school without dropping out, to become a professional engineer, and it boils my blood to hear people say "its not really that hard, it's just about determination" because it's totally false. No-one is learning advanced engineering on their lunch breaks (in fact Homer Hickam never even dropped out of school), it takes a huge investment of time and being surrounded by people who can pass on information from previous generations of engineers. Even then, many still fail to get anywhere in engineering. The reality of the situation is that not anyone can make it, but anyone with enough money and luck can convince everyone that they did.
So developing the assembly line is a business enterprise, not an engineering endeavour? He brought cars to the masses, when it was a rich man's hobby before. He also designed and built a working auto with a 2 cycle, water cooled engine. That sounds like engineering to me. But, him aside, what about the others mentioned? Don't discount the assertion by keying in on one part you find disagreeable. Also, read Eisenhower's speech on the corrupting influence of government involvement in developing technology. It is eye opening and prescient.
Somehow, the rest of your comments didn't appear until I reloaded the page, I didn't see the entirety of your comment. I'll bow to your professional engineering knowledge and understanding of the thoughts and intents of the hearts of these men. I've met quite a few self taught engineers, and they are very aware of the disdain of the educated engineering community. The one's I've admired strive to excel, and usually are fiercely protective of what they develop. Have a great Christmas, I've enjoyed the conversation.
These guys stumbled on a great idea, and i enjoy watching their stories. That had to be something to see this kit turn into a heavier than air device with passengers, wow!!!!
@@charge2025 there are no "pictures", there is a single picture... There is no way to confirm the date of the picture nor what the aircraft was doing. You can throw a rock to the sky and take a picture, does not mean it's flying.
Anderson in his fundamentals of aerodynamics text book mentions that the Wright Bros also had to design and build their own simple small scale wind tunnels to test different wing models’ profiles.
Despite their formal education they created something that never was imagined even though I traveled almost every where but still bewildered how the aircraft fly with so many people on board and their baggages and stuff just like a child thinks about that paper aeroplane. Massive thank you wrights you were you're and you'll be there forever for what you've accomplished ❤️. Also we could've learnt one more lesson that education isn't for genius they're born with their theory wothin and make what wrights invented.
Thanks for this wonderfully animated, informative video. It greatly enhanced our knowledge. The pilot was not positioned at the center, rather slightly off the center, at one side, as he his body weight balanced the weight of the motor that was placed on the other side of the center. This was done to curb any possible angular momentum/ gyroscope effect due to unbalanced weight.
See, in the table below, the data published by the North American magazine "National Aeronautics", official body of the "National Aeronautics Association" in Washington: Pilot Location Date Flight time Santos Dumont Bagatelle 12/11/1906 21 ” Henri Farman Issy le Moulineaux 11/26/1907 52 ” L éon Delagrange Champ de Mars 11/04/1908 6’30 ” H enri Farman Issy le Moulineaux 06/07/1908 29’53 ” Léon Delagrange Issy le Moulineaux 09/06/1908 20’19 For many years, these official figures have been published without any dispute. In the American magazine "Reader’s Digest" of December 1942, we found an article entitled "Santos Dumont, Father of Aviation", condensed from the magazine "Air Facts". From page 54 we transcribe the following excerpt: “in 1906 he gave the world the first public demonstration of flight in a device heavier than air (the Wright brothers only came to fly publicly in 1908)”.
But the first flight was carried out by the father of aviation Santos Dumond do Brasil in France in the 20th century with his 14-Bis plane followed by the famous Demoiselle .... (source, wikipedia)
Marvellous invention by the Wright Brothers. They only flew for 20 min for the first time in 1903. After 66 years later we saw Apollo 13 space craft carried Neil Armstrong to land on the moon and return back safely. Not just that in 1964 we saw the Anglo French Concede flew at at an astronomical speed of 2000km/hr that covered the London to Newyork just at 3.5 hrs. We also saw that A380 Airbus (that too a double decker )flying from Singapore to Sydney in 5 hrs nonstop in its maiden flight. All these things would not have happened if the Wright Brothers did not invent the airplane. Thanks for the video. Long live their memory.
Did you know that the Wrights pulled three strings to make wing warping systems? When they did this, the idiot who was in charge seemed to be dancing. Kkkkkkk
I am not sure that I know what you are talking about. A modern graphic probably illustrates how the Wright's controlled an unmanned gilder. There were 4 lines or strings. They terminated on two ends of a hand held stick. By tilting the stick you could warp the wings of the glider. The lines also tethered the gilder allowing it to be flown like a kite. I don't recall seeing anyone do this but there are probably videos at the Kitty Hawk website. If we can find them, then we can decide for ourselves whether or not flying a glider this way could be described as dancing. The illustrations I saw are probably found on wright-brothers history sites.
@@stevebett4947 kkkkkk machine that was never introduced before Dumont in flight. forget it, boy, these two never proved their ability to fly before 1908 !!!
@@acucarchocolate3961 Because the "official record" people didn't exist yet. There was no FAA, NTSB, ICAO, IATA or any flight governing body in existence at the time because nobody could prove that they had achieved flight until the Wright Brothers arrived. Without the Wright brothers, there never would have been enough buzz around aviation for the FAI to be necessary. You demanding "Official Records" for the Wright brothers is like demanding an electrical utility bill from Thomas Edison to prove he figured out how to make a practical and inexpensive incandescent light bulb.
I just can't imagine that "high school dropouts" discovered all the engineering physics that's now applied in modern flights today! Incredible! Incredible!
The first real flight was performed by Alberto Santos - Dumont, who built a real proper plane which would take off unassisted. Even a rock can "fly" when tossed by a catapult lol The plane 14 bis gave birth to modern aviation.
@@agauerm Dumont used the kayak paddle propellers on his early plane prototypes that he used on his balloons. They were not aerodynamic, but beat the wind like a table fan producing more eddies and flutter than directed thrust for lift. Dated photos of his planes bear this up. He changed the propeller design after the Wrights exhibited in France...and his plane and others suddenly worked. If the aviators in Europe had designed the propeller properly, then they would have been the first to powered, controllable duration flight. Lighter motors and proper propellers is all they were lacking. Their wing and tail design was superior to the box kite design, and became the defacto shape after 1910 to this day. Many inventions that didn't work were only missing one or two eureka elements.
O “14 BIS” foi o primeiro avião mais pesado que o ar a conseguir decolar por seus PRÓPRIOS MEIOS, SEM AUXÍLIO DE CATAPULTA. Esse fato histórico teve lugar em Bagatelle (centro de Paris), no dia 23 de outubro de 1906. Nessa data, Santos Dumont decolou com seu “14 BIS”
@@pedroRaiden eles omitiram a catapulta nesse vídeo. Mas você pode ver que tem um trilho em baixo do avião. Esse trilho sobre o qual o avião dos Wright se encontra estava ligado a um sistema de polias e catapulta. Tem vídeos mostrando o sistema. Ou seja, o "avião" dos Wright não decolava sozinho. Logo não era um avião.
Back in early 2000 the Smithsonian was trying to build a replica for 100th anniversary. I saw special on TV where they took remaining propeller and analyzed it with computers and found it to be to most efficient design and build possible even though it was hand made. Wrights were way ahead of everybody
@@rishz7857 couldn't get big fat government grant to pursue their experiment of heavier - than - air craft. They couldn't even get government money after they were successful.
I love Brazilians.... "The replica didn't fly." - The weather on December 17th at Kitty Hawk was unusually cold that day. The barometric pressure was very very high. The air density altitude on that day was about a 1000' below sea level from a normal day. That's why they flew. Had they not, it would have only been a few days and they would have. When they went back to Ohio the air density altitude was about 5000' and no, the aircraft didn't fly. It took them some time to figure out that barometric pressure was important when it comes to flying. If you look farther into it, they tried the replica again a few days later and it DID fly. John Denver, the late singer, built a replica in the late 80's.... IT FLEW!!!! "They were catapulted into the air and glided."- They did not use a catapult at Kitty Hawk. You are referencing the very 1st filming of a flight in Ohio. That was the 4th airplane they had built in Ohio (its here on TH-cam) . There was no catapult at Kitty Hawk…. There was no catapult…. At Kitty Hawk. If a fighter jet gets catapulted off the end of an aircraft Carrier, does it then not fly? They didn't build their catapult until 1904. "Dumas was the first to fly"‐ According to the definition of heavier-than-air flight, no he didn't. His airplane did not have a proper propeller, it did not have a way of controlling the aircraft via ailerons or wing warping or a rudder that moved or elevators that went up-and-down…. He hopped. He used Hargrave cells, the same thing a box kite is made of, not a wing that generates lift by air moving over it. Just as you guys wanna claim the Wright brothers were catapulted... his airplane was just like a paper airplane. It was a powered box kite. "Dumont is credited in 1906 with the first aeronautical achievement by the French."- The FAI wasn't incorporated until....... 1906. So of course they're wouldn't be anything before that year. They were also in Europe. The Wrights were in the U.S. When they went over in 1908 to show off the Wright flier, all of the French naysayers and doubters printed public retractions that they were wrong. Because of how the airplane flew they knew that the Wright brothers had been flying for years, while they were still only on short, uncoordinated, uncontrolled hops. They even said we are beaten, we no longer exist. That's how much they knew the Wrights had done it. th-cam.com/video/SgoPPg8oVt8/w-d-xo.html Please go do some research!!!!!
The first flight was made by Santos Dumond in 1906. The Wright brothers allegedly flew before him, but there is no record of this. Santos Dumond did it in front of the Eiffel Tower with half of Paris watching. And the plane took off by itself, not with that catapulted bullshit.
When Wright is in Paris to look for the description of the DUMONT machine, 1907, they bought an engine with the same characteristics as the Dumont engine, light and powerful
Please read enough to get your facts straight. The contracted with three engine builders to produce engines for the anticipated European Wright Flyers. The engine was a copy of the 38 hp. 1906 Wright upright 4. They were built under license. (specs available at Gutenberg Project, URL below) Is there any evidence that the Wrights were interested in copying any of the design features of the 14 bis? You claim that the copied the engine but there is no evidence for this. The Antoinette 8V is quite different from the Wright upright 4. They probably should have purchased the 1906 Antoinette 8V but they preferred their own design. They were interested in keeping an eye on how much progress was being made in Europe. The Wrights thought they had a 5 year head start but the news in 1906 indicated that their lead might be less than they thought. The main reason for the trip was to set up the production of the Wright Flyer. They brought the design for their latest upright Dayton engine and contracted Bariquand et Marré for several to be built to their specifications. French and German companies produced these under license. For the specs for four of the Wright's engines, check out Project Gutenberg. www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38739 The engine used in 1908 was the 1906 upright 4. The Wrights built 4 copies of the 2 place Wright Flyer 2. One was shipped to France. It had their latest 35+ hp engine. It was fortunate that they had ordered 4 engines from their French engine builder because the Dayton engine threw a rod and had to be replaced. They replaced it with a French built replica of their Dayton engine: the 1906 upright 4. The Wright-Taylor engine built under license by Bariquand et Marré was one that Santos Dumont recommended for the production version of the Demoiselle.
@@majorbett Boy, this is the truth. The wrights sent this letter to boil in 1907 asking for all the information related to the work of Dumont, the brothers wanted to know everything. They were in Paris for several months (they didn't register anything, they didn't prove anything) they bought a light and powerful engine similar to Dumont's engine. They return to the United States and finally , May 1908 presented the flyer in extremely poor flight conditions. They just flew 337 meters. This letter is published in L'envol magazine number: 39, 1932. A copy is worth more than $ 100,000 in any auction .Dear Captain Ferber, My brother Orville and I learned through reading the correspondence from Paris Published in the New York Herald, that the French public had highly appreciated a 220 metre flight in a straight line made by Mr. Santos-Dumont in an airplane of his own construction. We would like very much to have exact reports of the experiments made at Bagatelle and hope that you will draw up for us a correct list of the trials and give us a description of the flying machine and drawing of same . We have already seen by the picture in the New York Herald that the airplane rests on three wheels and we deduce from this that Mr. Santos-Dumont, in order to effect his start-off, has first to make a run over a long level field. With the aid of the starting-off, pillar that we use, Orville and I speedily go right up into the air in a much more practical fashion. Now, in view of the fact that the French consider a 220 metre flight in a straight Line over the ground to be a “sensational performance”, we are sure to find a lot in Favour if we come to exhibit in France; but the voyage and the transportation of the Machine and the pillar cost much more money than the two poor Dayton mechanics can afford to spend; also, dear Captain Ferber, if French experts, under your management, desire to come to Dayton, we will give them a demonstration of the machine in the neghbouring field, flying for five minutes in a complete circle and let them have an option of the performance and release of the machine, for $50000 (fifty thousand dollars), cash down. Your trully Wilburn wright
@@gilberto2056 Thanks for the letter. Is there an associated URL? I am not sure what May 1908 flight of 337 meters you refer to. Could it be the flight where the engine failed? As you know, the 2 place Wright Flyer set several distance records in France. The last one was for the Michelin prize for the longest flight in 1908. I don't find anything curious about the Wright's wanting to keep up with any record setting flights in Europe.
@@majorbett The Wright brothers bought french engine Bariquand & Marre to power the planes they finally flew in front of credible witnesses in 1908 The articles, "Aviation in US. Seven french engines for the Wright brothers, L'Aérophile, Apr. 1, 1908, pag. 127" ( gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f137.image.r=wright%2040%20CV.langEN ) which says that the french company "Barriquaud-Mare" had just delivered seven 40 HP Antoinette like plane engines to the Wright brothers and "Progress of the Wright airplane experiments", Scientific American, May 23, 1908 ( www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001208/ ) that also talks about french engines, demonstrate, both of them, that the brothers needed in May 1908 far more powerful engines for far less spectacular flights than the ones allegedly performed in 1905. Also on Aug. 8, 1908, the Wright brothers using same french engines flew only 1 min and 45 sec in France, far from 38 minutes in Dayton in 1905 when a considerable weaker engine was used. These brothers have simply no credibility and only their officially witness flights can be trusted. The rest is their own fiction.
@@majorbett One detail, this letter was published in the magazine l'envol number 39, 1932. And the letter is extremely clear. THE WRIGHT WANTED DUMONT'S KNOWLEDGE. Until 1908 The brothers never submitt machines in flight.
That is why people that believe Santos Dumont's flights are sure about them, and people that believe in Wright brother's flights have faith on them. The polemic goes forever because mixes fact with faith.
@@sanpol4399 While flights after 1906 had a way to make them official and credible, flights before this date did not. The question is not faith but rather relative plausibility of two stories: The Wrights account was very close to the truth or a conspiracy theory where the Wrights and all the witnesses were making things up. Some if not most of the early newspaper reports were inaccurate but this was not the fault of the Wrights.
@@majorbett I am 100% sure there is no way to be sure they did what they claim about flying sustained up to 1908. The burden of proof is on those who claim something, so, you should answer that question.🙂 If you ask someone if he is 100% sure about the historical flights Santos Dumont did with his 14-bis , the answer will be yes. So, can I assume you are not sure about any self sustained Flyer 1,2,3 flight ? 
According to the International Aeronautics Federation (FIA), the British newspaper "The Independent" , the first public flight was made by a Brazilian. On October 23, 1906, the inventor Alberto Santos Dumont flew over the Bagatelle field in Paris. The event was attended by more than a thousand people and was filmed. It was officially certified by the International Aeronautics Federation (FAI) fullfiling requirements such as being documented and taking off by its own means - without a ramp or catapult. Source: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/revealed-the-man-who-really-invented-the-aeroplane-421147.html Nevertheless, it is important to note the concept of MULTIPLE DISCOVERY, as other improvements have come BEFORE the Wright brothers and Dumont. Another interesting event was the Demoiselle aircraft projected by Dumont in 1908 the world’s first series production aircraft. Later, he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, leading to depression. He committed suicide tormented to see the aircraft invention used as a killing machine during WWI.
Thanks for making a very good point and adding a precious and undeniable piece of fact information to this video and making it more "complete" in my opinion.
even the Scientific American journal, the most respectable science journal in USA at that time, recognized Dumont as the 1st man to demonstrate that heavier than air flight was possible. Issue of 8th of November, 1906 - Scientific American
The wing warping system they use is wonderfully simple and intuitive. I *knew* it worked as shown, but the details never came together until LE's animation. It's a shame it ended up being an impractical control system as airplanes evolved.
@@sanpol4399 My understanding of the Calassa video on his replica 14 BIS was that the ailerons were too weak to function. Gallaudet did build a kite and a glider that used Wing Warping. He also built a seaplane or hydroplane model with wing warping. Galllaudet made no attempt to patent his system of lateral control. I am not aware of any earlier attempts to use wing warping for lateral control. @UCH1GU7tG8Kns1eGkdurf5Gg needs to provide the references to support his claim thatthe idea predates Gallaudet. www.flyingmachines.org/gallau.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edson_Fessenden_Gallaudet A replica of the Curtis Hudson Flyer was also made of bamboo and did not have any strength issues th-cam.com/video/13du2ZcopLg/w-d-xo.html&pp=QAFIAQ%3D%3D
@@majorbett The high dihedral 14-bis has can make it tuff for his ailerons to act with good efficiency, but the point is that the ailerons were there and the principles of working were correct. If I tell for example that the Flyer 1 canard was nearly ineffective , and it was very easy to stall , making it quite impossible to regain control after stalling, does not make it not an elevator. It was an elevator, extremely problematic, but still an elevator.
You can't make an informed comment without studying. Please read up on a topic before showing your ignorance. There are plenty of biographies of the Wright Brothers.
@@majorbett what I meant to say is that people always say "oh well to be a successful man you have to have as many academic titles as possible", when history is full of people with a little education that created the greatest inventions in history, the Wright brothers are a perfect example, they weren't the most sharpest at school and they led people to fly. What I am trying to say my friend is: Please shut the fuck up before showing your shittery Edit: I just noticed I wrote "the most sharpest" and I missed a C in accademic. My bad, english isn't my mother language, but seen as many english-talking people talk a shitty italian even though they study it I think I am allowed to make some little mistakes (yes, I am italian, go on with the "ayy pizza mafia mandolino" joke, at least our students don't have mass shooting as a school subject)
@@Momo_KawashimaI was objecting to what I saw as a cheap insult in your first comment. What you are saying now sounds like a complete reversal. (paraphrased) > I have only read a couple books and some biographical articles on the web. None of them exactly indicated how good they were in school. Wilbur couldn't have been too bad since he was expected to go to Yale for his college education. There are several stories (some incompatible) on why he did not complete his senior year. One story is that Wilbur suffered a horrible injury playing hockey. He not only dropped out of school but was so depressed when he was convalescing, he almost checked out of life. You said: "you can't make success without studying" MB: ...but you can become successful by studying outside the formal classroom. The Wright brothers did not achieve success without study. In the 1890's , it was possible (with a good tutor) to rise to the top of a new field. The Wrights had Octave Chanute and the Library of Congress to provide them with a reading lists and resources. They became voracious readers. They had learned how to learn on their own. When I was teaching (I am a retired professor) it was my goal to inspire students to do the same.
Please one/(a couple) successful dropout stories doesn't mean that the 16yo dropout I see working at McDonald's will suddenly invent a teleportion device... Hmmm
There is sort of a dispute about Santos Dumont , the Brazilian with a French name. There was a monument in his name where I lived in Sao Paulo. Don't know if still there at this time.
I don't believe there is any method used to overcome this effect other than the pilot compensating using the rudder. In modern planes the inertia of the prop is not as significant when compared to the mass of the plane so the gyroscopic effect is weaker.
I Guess they provide This single propeller opposite direction to the engine shaft by using gear arrangements..... So, it can cancel Gyroscopic effect....
@@sparkindustry1 what's interesting to note is the gyroscopic precession on early rotary engine aircraft where both engine and prop rotated. This produced different results when turning left or right.
This video is just Awesome...!!🙌❤ Please make more videos related to aircraft and the mechanism of wing warping... The pilot was off-centred to balance the weight of the engine, hence keeping the centre of mass on the midline(line of symmetry) of aircraft...
@@gilberto2056 That is not an answer to Nagpur's question. He wanted more information on wing warping. You could have referred him to Santos-Dumont's Demoiselle if there if you know of any information on how wing warping was adapted to a mono-plane.
2:00 - Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! The real genius of the Wright Brothers was that they realized from their glider tests that all the wing lift data that had ever been published in scientific journals up to that point was WRONG. The methodology used to calculate the lift data was flawed and the results unreliable. They built their own wind tunnel in their bicycle shop and developed their own lift data which they then used to design the wings of their flyer. That was type of out-of-the-box thinking that allowed the Brothers Wright to succeed where so many others had failed.
There is a debate between those who think that the wing lift data calculated by Lilienthal and others was wrong and those who think the Wrights' interpretation of it was wrong. I will find the references if you are interested in studying them.
@@stevebett4947 the wrights is within a couple tents of a percent of the exact amount we know today. Lilienthals was so far off and so bad it wasnt enough to keep a glider afloat unless jumping off a high surface with a huge headwind and even then not for long
@@Shadow0fd3ath24 For some reason the Santos Dumont fans don't mention the Smeaton Coefficient. How can you make your point so it will have some resonance with those consider the Wrights' to be liars rather than flyers? I don't think that Lilienthal was far off. There are good arguments defending the accuracy of the Lilienthal data for his type of wing. If you are interested, I can find the references. It will help if you read German. I am not sure what Neal B means by "out of the box thinking." Def: : to explore ideas that are creative and unusual and that are not limited or controlled by rules or tradition To solve this puzzle, you'll have to think outside the box. The Wrights' certainly did not use the traditional analogies in visualizing the key problems of flight and what was needed to invent a practical airplane. The traditional view from Caley to 1902 was to see the airplane as a ship on a sea of air. The needed LIFT, PROPULSION, and a RUDDER. The key problem was stability or how to keep the airship from tipping over. The Wrights' abandoned this analogy. D... and Santos Dumont were clearly in the old camp. The problems they addressed were propulsion (power to weight ratios) - lift - and stability. The 14-bix had a rudder but it was limited in its ability to keep the flying machine on course. My comments are already to long. See if you can find one idea that is worth discussing which might also address a concern of the Santos Dumont and Lilienthal enthusiasts. LINK simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_ SEA OF AIR... Cayley's concept that continued until the Wright Brothers It was the prevailing analogy. an airship was literally a boat in a sea of air. Bernoulli used in to explain his concept of air pressure. SB: In his case, the analogy worked. It does not work for Cayley. . . . atmospheric sea which contributes a large amount of pressure energy. pressure that changes with depth and provides buoyancy-for fish in water and balloons in air. The forces that apply to movement through air apply to movement through water as well. We are indeed bottom dwellers in a “sea of air.” Invited discussants. @Neil B, @Seth B, @Marco Papa, @asucar chocolate, @Mrunal Swamy, @Christian Engineer @Deepak Sankhyan @majorbett
Here is the description of the Wright 1906 engine along with earlier versions. The engine rpm was about 1000. The prop speed might have been around 325 rpm. Two 8 ft. fans with efficient propellers would produce quite a bit of thrust. Characteristics of the Wright Flight Engines REF: www.gutenberg.org/files/38739/38739-h/38739-h.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------- _1903 _1904-1905 _1908-1911 _1911-1915 First flight Experimental Demonstrations service_ engine[a]_ flights_ and service_ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cyl./Form 4/flat 4/flat 4/vertical 6/vertical Bore and stroke (in.) 4×4 4-1/8×4 4-3/8×4 4-3/8×4-1/2 Displacement (cu. in.) 201 214 240 406 Horsepower 8.25-16 15-21 28-42 50-75 RPM 670-1200 1070-1360 1325-1500 1400-1560 MEP 49-53 52-57 70-87 70-94 Weight (lb) 140-180 160-170 160-180 265-300 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@majorbett no. Wright brothers presented 12 hp in 1903. 16 hp in 1904 and 20 hp 1905. These motors have not potence for run, takeoff and land under its own power. Don't have physical conditions for motorized flight. 2003 the replicas's nasa proved the incapacity for flight. The 2003's replica has 50 hp motor.!!!!
@@selmanedel7973 Where are you getting your information? The exact replica had the same engine as the 1903 Wright Flyer. Here is the data on the first three Wright -Taylor engines. www.gutenberg.org/files/38739/38739-h/38739-h.htm I don't doubt that some replicas were not exact and may have used more powerful engines. Please identify the one with a 50 hp engine. The 1906 Taylor-Wright vertical 4 produced around 38 hp. It was built under license by a french company: bariquand et marre and a German company in addition to Dayton. The "NASA studies" did not prove the "incapacity for flight". They indicated that the 1903 Flyer was very unstable and almost impossible to fly. They thought that the flight distance would normally be in the 100-120 ft. range. When the exact replicas were flight tested with headwinds in the 15 mph range, this proved to be the case. The Flyer needed the 15+ mph headwind. In 1903, they were more than 20 mph. If you are going to refer to the "NASA" studies that were done in preparation for the 2003 Centennial and Hyde's exact replica, then provide the URL or reference.
@@majorbett in wikipedia of wright brothers, new between 1903/05, the brothers declarations in diary, the scientific community of the world, the nasa's replica in centennial 17 years's work for nothing, nasa proved all, the replica don't flew, jack cherne built one repkica in 1998 an wind tunels's tests the machine was incontrolable!!!! Gut, more study, guy.
The replica 1903 flyer did not fly at 10 am on Dec. 17 2003. There were three built and two of the test flights were marginally successful in November and early December. The videos are available. There was a 15 mph headwind on these test dates. I don't think there was any headwind at the time of the pre-scheduled flight. Sam Pol provides the URLs for John Denver's flight and for Dr. Kevin Kochersberger first test flight of about 100 ft. on Nov. 20 2003. th-cam.com/video/o1mscspl-VU/w-d-xo.html, I noticed that the ground crew did not hold on to the wing tips. They may have held on to them in 1903.
@@sanpol4399 To sustain flight, the craft needs a windspeed of 35 mph over the airfoil wings. A 12 hp. engine is fully capable of doing this. The problem is that the 1903 Wright Flyer was so unstable that it rarely sustained flight. The longest flight was an alleged to be 57 - 59 sec.
Lift, thrust, drag and weight were first identified by George Cayley, the pioneer of aeronautics, 100yrs before the Wright Bros who read his papers and followed his principles. Cayley designed the aerofoil and built the first manned glider. (He also invented the the wire wheel, for lightness.) If there'd been a practical source of motive power at the start of the 19th Century, he could've done powered flight.
I just saw your comment and put my own before I saw it Your correct Caleys principles of Flight for his Aircraft used by the Wright Brothers in their Aeroplane which is a Powered Aircraft. Caley made in Yorkshire😊
The first take-off (which proves that the thing is a plane aftreall) od Wright Flyer was 3 years before Dumont took off. But it doesn't matter that much, all pioneer aviators are heroes!
B4 the Wright Brothers and Santos Dumont there was.. www.google.com/search?q=the+first+airplane+whitehead&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNSrkJ9EZXoyWb2yBbYTM11qr4UkkA:1579335996893&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=RzEJXnDT0iHtnM%253A%252CBJVvdxtH-WWIwM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQbYngLr5_p0PTFSTTy-1poVGCRDQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4ns2I3YznAhVDI6wKHbPTAjQQ9QEwAHoECAYQAw#imgrc=wSLS0aU3x2twrM:&vet=1
@@DopravniPoradce There isn't consistent proofs of the Brother's flight in this time. They didnt took footage being that they could have done it, as well as they didnt call any scientist to comprove it. But they tried to sell the patent to everyone refusing to demonstrate the effectiveness of the invent, so greedy they are.
@@DopravniPoradce All pioneers were important, but the first plane that took of and flew by itself and nobody doubts that the flights were made. was the 14-bis invented and piloted by Santos Dumont. It was much lighter than the Flyer and had a V8 engine with 50 hp. The Flyer just could not Fly without a huge external power, because was 340,2 kg and had only 12 hp. The propellers turned really slow, at just 350 rpm. The Flyer
@@antoniohenrique2229 Exactly. Before 1908 there is no proof about any sustainable flight made by the Wright Brothers. The Flyer 1 had 340,2 kg and only 12 hp. Impossible to fly sustainable with this power x weight ratio.
The plane went circling counterclockwise. slightly off center so we can see clearly the person went flying for more than an hour. Brilliant, well thought... MASTERPIECE.
@@SrGanso-tv6mw claimed: "Americans don't want to talk about Santos Dumont." SB: Why wouldn't Americans want to talk about Santos Dumont and any other aviation pioneer? There is an article on aviation records that includes Santos Dumont and excludes the Wright Brothers. It was reprinted in Readers' Digest. How could this happen if what you say is true? There is good empirical and historical evidence that Santos Dumont was the first to set a record that complied with the French FAI rules. Except in Brazil, there is no consensus on who invented the airplane. Many people made contributions.
@@joy_hipermorte Can you elaborate? It doesn't seem to be a response to my comment. JM: "Santos Dumont invented the airplane." Please critique my comments: There is good empirical and historical evidence that Santos Dumont was the first to set a record that complied with the French FAI rules in 1906. There is no consensus on who invented the airplane. Many people made contributions. What were the contribution of Santos Dumont's bis-14 and why were they significant? - - - - - Sr. Ganso claimed: "Americans don't want to talk about Santos Dumont." SB: Why wouldn't Americans want to talk about Santos Dumont and any other aviation pioneer? There is an article on aviation records that includes Santos Dumont and excludes the Wright Brothers. It was reprinted in Readers' Digest. How could this happen if what you say is true? There is good empirical and historical evidence that Santos Dumont was the first to set a record that complied with the French FAI rules in 1906. Except in Brazil, there is no consensus on who invented the airplane. Many people made contributions. SB2: Both the Wright Brothers and Santos Dumont read Sr. George Cayley's theories and speculations. Cayley was the first to list the 4 requirements for flight. He also speculated that it would be a long time before the propulsion necessary for true flight would become available He said this after his flying machine failed to achieve more than a short hop with its 8 hp engine. Cayley did not predict a date, but others have. There would be no true flight by a heavier than air manned aircraft until 1951.
@@joy_hipermorte wrote: SANTOS DUMONT INVENTED THE AIRPLANE SB: Por favor, critique meus comentários: Há boas evidências empíricas e históricas de que Santos Dumont foi o primeiro a estabelecer um recorde de conformidade com as regras da FAI francesa em 1906. Não há consenso sobre quem inventou o avião. Muitas pessoas fizeram contribuições. Quais foram as contribuições do bis-14 de Santos Dumont e por que foram significativas?
How would you know that it was built to original specifications? Did the replica builder actually use the right composition in medals and rope strength per weight? Alot of things were made completely differently way back then.
How do you explain the two videos of exact replicas flying when there was a headwind of 15 mph or more. One test flight was in November. The other in early December. The two exact replicas did not fly well but the did take off when there was a 15 mph headwind. They flew 100-120 ft. in about 15 sec. Similar to the first flight on Dec. 17, 1903. . . when the headwinds were over 20 mph.
@@MarcABrown-tt1fp Read up on Hyde's construction of the exact replicas. Every effort was made to duplicate what was available in 1902-3 and to avoid using anything modern.
@@majorbett MB: I forgot to include the link to the tests that were made before the Centennial. th-cam.com/video/o1mscspl-VU/w-d-xo.html Both times the exact replica of the 1903 Wright flyer took off and flew about 100 ft. The flights were successful as proof of concept. It also identified problems suggested what needed to be upgraded. On November 20, 2003, Dr. Kevin Kochersberger piloted the 1903 Wright Experience Replica Flyer. With 15 mph winds he flew a distance of nearly 100 feet. th-cam.com/video/o1mscspl-VU/w-d-xo.html
tests done with the perfect replica of the centennial had extremely strong headwinds. the wind could be heard in the recordings. The same replica without strong headwind was tested and not took off.
![เปิดคำทำนาย นอสตราดามุส - บาบา วานก้า ปี 2025 คนทั่วโลกต้องเจออะไรบ้าง? | แฉ 11 ธ.ค. 67 [2/3] |GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xmTIKWJUMPM/mqdefault.jpg)
I hope the video was quite informative. Please support us so that we can continue our service www.patreon.com/LearnEngineering
To balance wieght of engine in another side pilot is supposed to be at that position
Also by this they devided wieght of airplane to get frther stability
@Mir Haider what?
Learn Engineering why do you think the motor was offset? It's pretty obvious isn't it?
@Mir Haider Can someone explain to him in Arabic that airplane and glider are not the same things.
thank you soooooo much
No one knows how many times they were failed to achieve this. Hats off to their dedication.
there was never any evidence that the brothers flew before Dumont. the truth is in that American magazine. the brothers have an eighth place among the pioneers of motorized flight.
@Vihangam Drishti the only problem is that all talpade, wright brothers and others had too much time to prove everything before Dumont and chances they all had. nothing was ever done publicly, nothing was presented, nothing was officially registered. Dumont actually won them all.
@Vihangam Drishti It's here, it's the monument to Dumont in Paris. Zoom in and you will see. FIRST AVIATION RECORD OF THE WORLD
.pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Vol_de_Santos-Dumont.JPG
@Vihangam Drishti Sorry, Guy, this monument has been in Paris for a long time and the record for Dumont has also been there for a long time by the greatest aeronautical authority in the world. Talpade and all the other fraudsters With motorized gliders that did nothing and never tried, did not shoot, did not photograph anything, in fact they did not achieve more than jumps in the air totally dependent on the contrary wind. Dumont was innovation, it was motorized flight.
@Vihangam Drishti calm, gay, you don't have to be nervous about not having anything official. study, research, maybe you will find some document with photos that prove something because for now it's like the wright brothers, it's just talk and paper. This never proved that they were on a machine.
And 66 years after the first flight by the Wright brothers, Man was stepping foot on the moon. That is simply incredible.
You would think 53 yrs after stepping on the moon we would be at least walking on Mars!!!!!
@@michaelgentiluomo5385 SORRY to disappoint you, we can't go to Mars and the moon landing was probably a CIA Hollywood operation to wind over allies over Russia, it was either them or us, the cold war remember? easier to fake than to actually get there or worse, failing trying.
@@michaelgentiluomo5385 problem is no more huge funding. I think it could be done or could have been done already.
@@michaelgentiluomo5385 we flew a helicopter on Mars, after flying through millions of miles of space. I'd say we are on track.
The first real flight was performed by Alberto Santos - Dumont, who built a real proper plane which would take off unassisted. Even a rock can "fly" when tossed by a catapult lol The plane 14 bis gave birth to modern aviation.
They pretty well invented the modern propellor too. An aeronautical engineering masterpiece all of its own.
Hats off to those great minds.
imagine how much efforts they put in.
RESPECT
Guy, wing warping sistem First test in New York 1896 by gallaudet. Wright brothers don't invented anything.
@brasileiros Silva Pictures from May 1908, The Wrights brothers' plane caught flying low in front of a tall sand dune
The images can be found here, (L'Aerophile, 1 July 1908 gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f260.image.r=wright.langEN ). They still glided down the slope. How can I believe that the two brothers were able to fly about 40 minutes in 1905 in Dayton, Ohio over a flat pasture if they still needed a hill and strong winds to fly in May 1908.
In a letter published in L'Aerophile, in which the two brothers gave technical details about all their claimed flights in May 1908, they also specified the wind speed as being between 4 and 9 m/s. (see L'Aerophile 15 June 1908, gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f232.image.r=wright%20mai.langEN ).
@brasileiros Silva read please, this is the real First Wright brothers's motorized flight.
@@gilberto2056 Silly boy, the Aero Club of America, Aero Club de France, the Federation Aeronautique Internatioinale, Octave Chenault, Ferdinand Ferber, and the French Government all certified the Wrights as having flown in 1903. The December 1905 and January 1906 issues of L'Aerophile documented the Wrights' successful flights at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina and Dayton, Ohio. In point of fact, it was L'Aerophile's reportage of the Wrights that motivated Santos Dumont to cease experimentation with lighter-than-air aircraft and instead concentrate on heavier-than-air aircraft. Why do you accuse the French of lying? Why do you hate France?
@brasileiros Silva Silly boy, the Aero Club of America, Aero Club de France, the Federation Aeronautique Internatioinale, Octave Chenault, Ferdinand Ferber, and the French Government all certified the Wrights as having flown in 1903. The December 1905 and January 1906 issues of L'Aerophile documented the Wrights' successful flights at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina and Dayton, Ohio. In point of fact, it was L'Aerophile's reportage of the Wrights that motivated Santos Dumont to cease experimentation with lighter-than-air aircraft and instead concentrate on heavier-than-air aircraft. Why do you accuse the French of lying? Why do you hate France?
Offcentered to balance the weight of the engine and let the center of mass be in the middle :D
simple as that :)
Yup
Noo, its not like that. Its bcuz they didn't have compulsory co-pilot rule back then. :D
Yep
And the gas tank should be center placed as its weight varies through out the flight.
The fact that they came up with coordinated yaw dampers is absolutely awesome, on top of everything else incredible that they did.
Or you look at Richard Pearses aircraft that flew before these clowns and actually used ailerons and elevators. No one is flying with wing warping or any of that nonsense now are they.
@@Flying_GC Witness accounts indicate that Pearse may have been working on a flying machine before 1904, although he stated that he began in February-March 1904.
Pearse, R. W. (10 May 1915). "Who Invented the Aeroplane?". The Evening Star (15799): p. 2
The Wright Brothers made the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft with the Wright Flyer on December 17, 1903, 4 mi (6 km) south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.
forget it, boy, they've already proven that if this shit is built in its original conditions, no one will fly. they never made it to the plane before 1908. The two shammers searched in 1907 the full description of Dumont's machine and after a year and a half they appeared flying. the flights between 1903-1905 BB have never been proven to have taken place
@@acucarchocolate3961 Refernces/citations please.
Boy, who should present the evidence that they flew before Dumont is you!! You have the official documents!! those documents that they between 1903-05 could have registered a thousand times before the Highest AERONAUTICAL AUTHORITY of the Paris Air Club era that existed since 1898!! do you have the evidence? PRESENT HERE PLEASE
I am writing a comprehensive article in Polish about the achievements of the Wright brothers and this film helped me a lot.
Is it accessible ?
Great Job again! I'm continually impressed in your ability to make videos on a wide range of engineering topics! Keep up the great work!
Can you make a video on electrical and electronic stuff plz.....
Branch Education 👍👍👍
This machine in original conditions don't flight.
Wilbur Wright did not 'drop out' of high school. He completed the curriculum, but due to his family relocating at about the time of his graduation, he never received his diploma. Orville DID drop out after completing 3 years of high school. This would have been noteworthy these days, but back then is was pretty common, and both brothers would have been considered fairly well educated.
Exactly. Their father was highly educated and had a great library in this home. Their mother was evidently a mechanical wizard. Their sister taught high school Latin and English and had graduated high school and Oberlin Academy/College. Looks like a high functioning family.
I believe they received a much better education in high school than most high school graduates today. And in many ways, many college graduates. They knew basic scientific principles, like collecting systematic data from their wind tunnel experiments.
Informal education is way more important for innovation. Educational system is flat, biased and so on. It is a good background but do not count only on it.
Still looks more comfortable than a Ryanair flight.
😂😂😂
True
Haha
Lol 😂😂😂😂
@@Fred-O86 safer without a "stall compensator."
The Wright brothers in school:
Teacher: today we will be designing a paper airplane
Weight brothers: ferb, I think I know what we’re gonna do today
But Phineas and Ferb do all those stuff during vacation. Haha
*Weight Brothers*
@@halalcomrade34 *Mars brothers*
@@ullisbullisully How about three musketeers brothers.
Wait but how will there be paper airplanes when the Wright brothers haven’t even invented the first airplane?
He would be slightly off center to count his weight with the motor weight so essentially he is balancing the left/right weight of the plane.
"hey I see your engine block is black, what material are you using?"
"Carbon. We're using carbon."
LoL
@Rishab Jain it's runite
Lmao
@Rishab Jain you didn't get the sarcasm .
They used aluminium
Pilot off center to correct center of mass offset due to engine weight.
Satvik Sharma 👍
I was stinking the same
The perfect replica don't flew.
Kyon pel raha hai.Cheel, kawaun ya Hans jotne se viman udta hai.Viman Shasta ki copy dikhade.Viman Shasta print kyon nahi hua Sankrit mein. Dinassaur ke avshesh miley hain.Oldcoin bhi milta hein, old utensils milta hein, old bees,bodies, old swords, arrows sab milta hein phir old viman kahan gayab ho gaye. Unka avshesh kahan hai.India mein tab kerosene petrol 16 ya 17 century tak nahi tha phir viman kya season ke oil se udte they
A reason that has not been considered is to keep the engine as far away from the pilot as possible.
Capt. Ferber lost his life when he was crushed by the engine which was located directly behind him.
Had he been flying a Wright 2 Model A, he would have probably survived.
There have been several Wright replica crashes that are quite similar to Ferber's
ill fated flight. All attempted to make a bank and turn from a low altitude and dug a wing into the ground.
The pilots of the Wright replicas walked away unscathed.
Impressive feat of innovation to me was they (including their machinist Charlie Taylor) built their engine design from scratch, with an aluminum block in just a few weeks!
AND - they camouflaged their secret aluminum design with a “ faux “ black sheet metal cover to conceal their idea !!!
TODAY - GM , Ford , etc continues to do this on their “ proving grounds “
for newly designed cars !
Bla ha ha !
Let’s not leave THAT tidbit out !
Love it !
Right ?
E final de contas nunca vôo! Kkkkkk
Taylor made the crank with a hacksaw and a drill press.
Wow! The science behind flying is absolutely amazing.
Their true genius was what they invented before they invented the 1903 Flyer. It was the first-ever wind tunnel, where they tested everything else rigorously.
Lie. The first wind tunnel developed by Pour la Cour in 1891. Wilbur Wright was only ten years old at this time. And the plane was invented by Santos Dumont in 1906 who took off and landed using the power of his plane's engine...In 1903 the Wrights just glided. The Flyer weighed 340 kl and the engine only had 12 hp. No haved power to decorate. US history is a festival of lies.
@@moisesgoncalves9898that’s crazy bro, yet the Wright brothers had 3 versions of their plane and a patent already submitted before Santos flew his first one. Better yet the Wright brothers could also sustain flight for half an hour with full control while Santos could only go straight for 700 feet. Not to mention the Wright brothers planes could be reused multiple times before being damaged.
@@moisesgoncalves9898also quick question, what does hp stand for?
There were lots of people designing and "flying" airplanes before the Wright brothers...but the Wright brothers were the first to have a "controlled" flight, meaning they were able to control the pitch, roll and yaw of the aircraft.
As far as i know it was the first powered flight. Not the first controlled. There where lots of controlled gliders before that. But this is the first "construction" with an engine.
Check out whitehead. History is incorrect
@@billy5179 the 1st powered real flight was done by Santos Dumont in his 14BIS, even the Scientific American journal at the time recognized that. Issue of 8th of November, 1906
The engine is so impressive in itself.
in and of itself
The Wright's had a weight limit for the engine and thought they needed only 8 hp. Their home-made aluminum block 4 cyl. engine was ingenious. By 1906, they had an air-frame that could handle a heavier engine. Not sure why they did not try the 40+ hp radial engine that Langley used. Instead, they used an improved variant of their original engine with almost twice the displacement. This was the engine they arranged for a French company to produce for their anticipated European built Wright Flyers.
Not once did they mention the name Taylor....he was the real genius....the mechanic who made designed the engine
The Wright Brother were self-taught aeronautical engineers but they didn't know squatoosh about internal combustion engines. The engine was designed and built by Charles Taylor, a mechanic who worked in the Brothers' bicycle shop in Dayton. Taylor also built the wind tunnel that was so instrumental in the brothers developing a successful wing design and assisted them in testing wing designs and developing lift data. He also ran the bike shop for months at a time while the Brothers were off in Kitty Hawk testing their designs. Charlie Taylor is an almost forgotten hero in the history of aviation.
But with only 12 hp that was a very weak and primitive engine.
In Europe at that time the engines were way better.
It's not the work of a single day.It must have taken a lot time,hard word and mainly interest.❤❤❤
Angular momentum is a important factor in bicycle design. All bicycles in early 20th century have two heavy steel rims, so no doubt Wright brothers know it well. They are educated by angular momentum on every single day.
These guys were beasts! Their plane was the reverse of today's prop planes. Elevator in front of the big wings and props in the back. It also had no rudder, as there was no tail. This plane was not at all easy to control, especially that hip assembly for wing warping. The wing warp idea came about when one of the brothers was fiddling around with an empty bike tire tube box and noticed how it distorted when he twisted it diagonally. Also amazing is that those 2 wooden props were cut by hand using a draw knife, yet achieved 87% efficiency!
See, in the table below, the data published by the North American magazine "National Aeronautics", official body of the "National Aeronautics Association" in Washington: Pilot Location Date Flight time Santos Dumont Bagatelle 12/11/1906 21 ”
Henri Farman Issy le Moulineaux 11/26/1907 52 ” L
éon Delagrange Champ de Mars 11/04/1908 6’30 ” H
enri Farman Issy le Moulineaux 06/07/1908 29’53 ” Léon Delagrange Issy le Moulineaux 09/06/1908 20’19 For many years, these official figures have been published without any dispute. In the American magazine "Reader’s Digest" of December 1942, we found an article entitled "Santos Dumont, Father of Aviation", condensed from the magazine "Air Facts". From page 54 we transcribe the following excerpt: “in 1906 he gave the world the first public demonstration of flight in a device heavier than air (the Wright brothers only came to fly publicly in 1908)”.
SB: Not sure that there first attempts to carve a prop were successful. A test on one found in museum showed that
it was defective. It produced more Drag than Thrust when the RPM was over 300 rpm. They could test small airfoils in their wind tunnel. It was not large enough to test an 8 ft. rotating prop. The best they could do was a static test of thrust using their machine shop motor.
On site, they used a spring scale for a static test of Thrust.
They were pleasantly surprised to find that their prop produced more thrust than it did in their calculations.
The Wright Propellers
Hyde started by bringing wooden propellers, hand crafted to the Wright specifications, to the NASA Langley Full Scale Tunnel, owned by NASA Langley and operated by ODU. Then he progressed to authentic reproductions of two Wright gliders and then, earlier this year, the Wright Flyer.
All were tested by ODU engineering professors and students.
SB: Were they 20 years ahead of their time? Not convinced that the first props were 87% efficient.
I think that Hyde had his props tested at the NASA wind tunnel in Virginia. I think they were about 82% efficient
at around 300 rpm and 35 mph.
A prop on a museum flyer replica was tested and found to produce more Drag than Thrust. This seems like a
good way to get rid of defective props because the museum replicas are not expected to fly.
Wright Props - www.researchgate.net/publication/237462889_Evolution_of_Wright_Flyer_Propellers_between_1903_and_1912_
"The Wright propellers were 20 years ahead of their time," said Professor Robert Ash,
Wright test program manager for ODU. "They were able to convert engine power into thrust with the efficiency
required to enable a small and heavy gasoline engine to propel the Wright Flyer. The December 17, 1903,
flight was not possible without the Wright propeller designs and this contribution has been largely overlooked."
www.loc.gov/collections/wilbur-and-orville-wright-papers/articles-and-essays/the-wilbur-and-orville-wright-timeline-1846-to-1948/1901-to-1910/
SB: I don't think it has been overlooked. It has been over-simplified. Without a large wind tunnel, it was very difficult
to carve a prop that matched their theory for how it should be done.
@@gilberto2056 Give it a rest, there were no "certifying organizations" in 1903, which is why there is no "official record" of the Wright brothers first flight. The Wright brothers created the need for those to be founded.
@@gilberto2056 I have a question for you . If Santos Dumont, living in France, built the first successful airplane, why did the French Government buy the Wright’s plane and not Dumont’s?
@@gilberto2056 Rubbish, If you want public flights try Huffman Prairie in 1905, right beside a trolleybus route with flights exceeding half an hour. /as others point out, the official body didn't exist when the Wrights first flew.
Wrights were bicycle workshop, anybody dealing with bikes knows giroscopic momentum :)
Sometimes I imagine what would the world be without these engineering
Prehistoric
someone else would make one
@@dylanlockler1039 he said without any of the logic used in engineering the airplane, I'd say it humanity would still be stuck in the stone age
Lockler is right. There were dozens of people trying to produce a practical airplane.
Had the Wrights not done it, someone else would have in less than 6 years.
The 1903 prototype had dozens of problems. The Wrights did not consider it to be
a practical airplane but the test flight indicated they were on the right track.
By the end of 1905 they thought they had all the data they needed and stopped flying.
They were so sure of themselves that they came up with a more robust design
and built a stronger motor, the 1906 Taylor-Wright upright 4. This new prototype
was never tested because they were certain it would fly. They built at least 3
copies of this design. One they shipped to France in 1907. The other was built
to demonstrate at Ft....., Virginia for the Army. The third was a back-up.
@@majorbett Ft. Myer, VA. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wright-Fort_Myer.jpg
Includes a great photo of the 1908 Wright Flyer, Model A.
And the fact that they had to figure this out on their own being the first to achieve a successful flight
I don't even think that they had to figure out everything on their own. Remember, at least 500 years before, Leonardo Da'Vinci was trying to make his own flying machine. Who knows how many inventors before and since have tried. All the had to do was take ideas that already exist and rearrange them until they got the "Wright" formula.
Santus dumont was the real first!
@@blackbway AM: "All the had to do was take ideas that already exist and rearrange them."
SB: Of course they didn't have to figure out everything on their own.
The problem was that much of the conventional wisdom was not that accurate.
Until 1908, everyone else had accepted the Cayley's model that the task was to find a way to achieve stability on the analogy of a ship in a sea of air. The Wrights had a different analogy which enabled others to make spectacular advances.
They were not concerned with stability. They were concerned with
controllability. Their analogy was a bike rider on a bike.
@@stevebett4947 makes all the sense.
Thank you.
@@phase4265 Richard Pearse would argue that fact.
Excellent video. Great detailed explanation. These guys were brilliant engineers, despite no formal training. They used their knowlege of bicycle design in many areas. I read they did extensive testing and took meticulous notes on every detail.
They were remarkable in their belief that they could do it...Which they did ...I loved this presentation !!
This was really a brilliant piece of engg at that time.
Díky!
I find it interesting that you are astonished that "7th grade dropouts" could be elegant engineers. Anyone with curiosity can learn. You don't have to sit in a class to figure things out. We call them autodidacts (self taught). R. G. LeTourneau was one such man. Take a look at the movie "October Sky" to see someone learn principles of physics on his lunch hour, at a picnic bench in a coal mine. Curiosity and determination make the engineer. He will self educate if needs be. These men were gifted, in spite of their formal education, they excelled. Any one can.
See also Thomas A. Edison (attended school for 12 weeks), Henry Ford (self taught watch repairman) Our history was shaped by such informally educated people.
Ya I totally agree and the message could be: "They were dedicated and willing to do things differently, something anyone can do, and this is what they came up with"
Sorry guy, but that mindset, while pervasive, is not really true.
Ford was a great businessman, not an engineer. He did not engineer anything, he just found a really good way to -be incredibly racist- sell cars.
Edison again, was a good businessman, who was extremely litigious and cutthroat. He famously took credit for the achievements of his team of engineers, as well as trying to smear people like Tesla and Swan.
I haven't heard of R.G. LeTourneau before now, but given that when I google him everything that comes up is some evangelical website, (and that the Wikipedia article references mostly sources made by his descendants) it makes me rather suspicious. Also the guy was massively racist so I seriously doubt he's much different to the likes of Ford.
The Wrights, again, are known in actual engineering circles as not really all that great engineers, but malicious businessmen.
What do all these people have in common? Money to afford good PR, and a willingness to be utter assholes to competitors and the people who actually did the work.
I have actually gone through school without dropping out, to become a professional engineer, and it boils my blood to hear people say "its not really that hard, it's just about determination" because it's totally false. No-one is learning advanced engineering on their lunch breaks (in fact Homer Hickam never even dropped out of school), it takes a huge investment of time and being surrounded by people who can pass on information from previous generations of engineers. Even then, many still fail to get anywhere in engineering. The reality of the situation is that not anyone can make it, but anyone with enough money and luck can convince everyone that they did.
So developing the assembly line is a business enterprise, not an engineering endeavour? He brought cars to the masses, when it was a rich man's hobby before. He also designed and built a working auto with a 2 cycle, water cooled engine. That sounds like engineering to me.
But, him aside, what about the others mentioned? Don't discount the assertion by keying in on one part you find disagreeable.
Also, read Eisenhower's speech on the corrupting influence of government involvement in developing technology. It is eye opening and prescient.
Somehow, the rest of your comments didn't appear until I reloaded the page, I didn't see the entirety of your comment. I'll bow to your professional engineering knowledge and understanding of the thoughts and intents of the hearts of these men.
I've met quite a few self taught engineers, and they are very aware of the disdain of the educated engineering community. The one's I've admired strive to excel, and usually are fiercely protective of what they develop.
Have a great Christmas, I've enjoyed the conversation.
4:05 footage of me getting out of bed in the morning
😂😂😂😂
lol
Lol, seriously though, it's best to sit on the edge of the bed for a bit, mostly because of your heart.
My grandpa Art Fritzen did the Propellers for the 1903 Wright Flyer in The National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution
This was genius and a very dangerous idea at that time respect for both brothers.
Greetings from the royal family how are you doing
Yes, they must of had some hairy flights discovering they needed a rudder and then co ordinating it with the wing warp.
Explanations in this channel is great for students like us. Thank u so much
These guys stumbled on a great idea, and i enjoy watching their stories. That had to be something to see this kit turn into a heavier than air device with passengers, wow!!!!
They were definitely the Right Brothers to invent the aeroplane.
Yeah but they weren't. If you believe American hype yes. It's the biggest farse ever.
If you mean all evidence proving that they did, then yes, you'd be correct
@@charge2025 zero evidence other than 'trust me bro'
@agauerm Except for all the pictures the Wrights made sure to take
@@charge2025 there are no "pictures", there is a single picture... There is no way to confirm the date of the picture nor what the aircraft was doing. You can throw a rock to the sky and take a picture, does not mean it's flying.
Please we should not forget the fact that these men tested and failed more times to get a stable solution . Amazing
You are so correct. If at first you don’t succeed , try again
@@Malitubee th-cam.com/video/mGPlEGcF2xA/w-d-xo.html we have a research about a drone
will you react on our study if its possible or not hahaha
Awesome 👍 This is my field of study!
Me: watches one Wright Brothers video.
TH-cam: *so you like the Wright brothers, eh?*
Anderson in his fundamentals of aerodynamics text book mentions that the Wright Bros also had to design and build their own simple small scale wind tunnels to test different wing models’ profiles.
Despite their formal education they created something that never was imagined even though I traveled almost every where but still bewildered how the aircraft fly with so many people on board and their baggages and stuff just like a child thinks about that paper aeroplane. Massive thank you wrights you were you're and you'll be there forever for what you've accomplished ❤️.
Also we could've learnt one more lesson that education isn't for genius they're born with their theory wothin and make what wrights invented.
The brilliant engeneering of great fracass.
Thanks for this wonderfully animated, informative video. It greatly enhanced our knowledge. The pilot was not positioned at the center, rather slightly off the center, at one side, as he his body weight balanced the weight of the motor that was placed on the other side of the center. This was done to curb any possible angular momentum/ gyroscope effect due to unbalanced weight.
See, in the table below, the data published by the North American magazine "National Aeronautics", official body of the "National Aeronautics Association" in Washington: Pilot Location Date Flight time Santos Dumont Bagatelle 12/11/1906 21 ”
Henri Farman Issy le Moulineaux 11/26/1907 52 ” L
éon Delagrange Champ de Mars 11/04/1908 6’30 ” H
enri Farman Issy le Moulineaux 06/07/1908 29’53 ” Léon Delagrange Issy le Moulineaux 09/06/1908 20’19 For many years, these official figures have been published without any dispute. In the American magazine "Reader’s Digest" of December 1942, we found an article entitled "Santos Dumont, Father of Aviation", condensed from the magazine "Air Facts". From page 54 we transcribe the following excerpt: “in 1906 he gave the world the first public demonstration of flight in a device heavier than air (the Wright brothers only came to fly publicly in 1908)”.
Well Explaned & Thanks for the giving knowledge
But the first flight was carried out by the father of aviation Santos Dumond do Brasil in France in the 20th century with his 14-Bis plane followed by the famous Demoiselle .... (source, wikipedia)
Americans won't ever acknowledge this, sadly... They were taught wrong, and will defend Wright Brothers whatever it takes.
Because Wikipedia is reliable
Also Richard Pearse in New Zealand months before the Wrights gave flight and with take off not like the unmentioned Wrights assisted take of shute.
Make a vídeo on Santos Dumont's 14bis! Please!!
Yeah, the Brazilian with french name.
@@JB73691 what is the problem with his name?
@@erico859 He is Brazilian with a French name, so nothing wrong with his name brother. His heritage is French.
the real inventor of airplane
@@gabrielleal8071, do not forget Clément Ader
Marvellous invention by the Wright Brothers. They only flew for 20 min for the first time in 1903. After 66 years later we saw Apollo 13 space craft carried Neil Armstrong to land on the moon and return back safely. Not just that in 1964 we saw the Anglo French Concede flew at at an astronomical speed of 2000km/hr that covered the London to Newyork just at 3.5 hrs. We also saw that A380 Airbus (that too a double decker )flying from Singapore to Sydney in 5 hrs nonstop in its maiden flight. All these things would not have happened if the Wright Brothers did not invent the airplane. Thanks for the video. Long live their memory.
Alberto Santos Dumont sends his regards.
He didn't fly...
Edison : exists
Wright Brothers : Paint that engine Black!
Thanks
The engineering behind the first airplane was really incredible and so the explanation.👍👍👍👍
Do you know what a perfect replica won't fly to? In fact, they never managed to fly. But look what happened in Paris 1906!!
@@acucarchocolate3961Yet there’s a video of it being capable of flight with a replica lol
@@nonbigbrain9662 nope
@@agauerm yep
Did you know that the Wrights pulled three strings to make wing warping systems? When they did this, the idiot who was in charge seemed to be dancing. Kkkkkkk
I am not sure that I know what you are talking about.
A modern graphic probably illustrates how the Wright's controlled an unmanned gilder.
There were 4 lines or strings. They terminated on two ends of a hand held stick.
By tilting the stick you could warp the wings of the glider. The lines also tethered the gilder allowing it
to be flown like a kite. I don't recall seeing anyone do this but there are probably videos at the Kitty Hawk website.
If we can find them, then we can decide for ourselves whether or not flying a glider this way could be described as dancing.
The illustrations I saw are probably found on wright-brothers history sites.
@@stevebett4947 kkkkkk machine that was never introduced before Dumont in flight. forget it, boy, these two never proved their ability to fly before 1908 !!!
@@harpiasonhadorasonhadora5259look up the wright flyer 3
Very comprehensive video on these amazing people! They were the first in many things not just controlled, sustained, powered flight.
Without proofs.
The OFFICIAL RECORD with photos between 1903-1905never appeared.
@@acucarchocolate3961 Because the "official record" people didn't exist yet. There was no FAA, NTSB, ICAO, IATA or any flight governing body in existence at the time because nobody could prove that they had achieved flight until the Wright Brothers arrived. Without the Wright brothers, there never would have been enough buzz around aviation for the FAI to be necessary. You demanding "Official Records" for the Wright brothers is like demanding an electrical utility bill from Thomas Edison to prove he figured out how to make a practical and inexpensive incandescent light bulb.
except they were not... Maybe to first to glide on a glider with an engine attached to it
I just can't imagine that "high school dropouts" discovered all the engineering physics that's now applied in modern flights today! Incredible! Incredible!
High school drop out because they were so Brilliant that their innovation was 99% better then what a high school could provide at that time.
The first real flight was performed by Alberto Santos - Dumont, who built a real proper plane which would take off unassisted. Even a rock can "fly" when tossed by a catapult lol The plane 14 bis gave birth to modern aviation.
@@agauerm completly false!!
@@zeke2566 nope
@@agauerm Dumont used the kayak paddle propellers on his early plane prototypes that he used on his balloons. They were not aerodynamic, but beat the wind like a table fan producing more eddies and flutter than directed thrust for lift. Dated photos of his planes bear this up. He changed the propeller design after the Wrights exhibited in France...and his plane and others suddenly worked.
If the aviators in Europe had designed the propeller properly, then they would have been the first to powered, controllable duration flight.
Lighter motors and proper propellers is all they were lacking. Their wing and tail design was superior to the box kite design, and became the defacto shape after 1910 to this day.
Many inventions that didn't work were only missing one or two eureka elements.
This video clarified so many physics concepts in such a simple way. Years of schooling could not give me such clarity.
The man was placed off set to counter balance with the motor. That was an amazing video. Ty
O “14 BIS” foi o primeiro avião mais pesado que o ar a conseguir decolar por seus PRÓPRIOS MEIOS, SEM AUXÍLIO DE CATAPULTA. Esse fato histórico teve lugar em Bagatelle (centro de Paris), no dia 23 de outubro de 1906. Nessa data, Santos Dumont decolou com seu “14 BIS”
Os maluco precisavam de catapultakkkkkkkkkkk
@@samuellopes5766 Tu pelo menos viu o video? Aonde que eles usaram uma catapulta mano
@@pedroRaiden eles omitiram a catapulta nesse vídeo. Mas você pode ver que tem um trilho em baixo do avião. Esse trilho sobre o qual o avião dos Wright se encontra estava ligado a um sistema de polias e catapulta. Tem vídeos mostrando o sistema. Ou seja, o "avião" dos Wright não decolava sozinho. Logo não era um avião.
@@SerginhoPMouracan you link one of these videos showing a catapult?
Great explanation after long time you back to mechanical related clip, thanks 😊
what an incredible video, WELL DONE !!!!
Back in early 2000 the Smithsonian was trying to build a replica for 100th anniversary. I saw special on TV where they took remaining propeller and analyzed it with computers and found it to be to most efficient design and build possible even though it was hand made.
Wrights were way ahead of everybody
Wilbur & Orville did it all without government assistance!! So big gov't, get outta the way.
@@rishz7857 couldn't get big fat government grant to pursue their experiment of heavier - than - air craft. They couldn't even get government money after they were successful.
Santos Dumont the first invention.
LOL.... Brazilians always trying to sneak credit where there is non due.... please stop!
@@josephsmith1893 bro the brother's used a catapult, and catapulted ultil shit flies
@@rafaelmendes6918 Did you even watch the video? Where do you see the catapult?
@@josephsmith1893 If It depended on the Wright Brothers we would be sailing today. LOL
Search for Abbas Ibn Fernas
What an amazing piece of aviation masterpiece! Bravo Wilbur and Orville Wright
And few years later, this masterpiece was flown into the WTC, by Ahmad & brothers ....😂😂🤣🤣. Indeed a masterpiece event also...lol
@@deadnlovingit not the same plane
I love Brazilians....
"The replica didn't fly." - The weather on December 17th at Kitty Hawk was unusually cold that day. The barometric pressure was very very high. The air density altitude on that day was about a 1000' below sea level from a normal day. That's why they flew. Had they not, it would have only been a few days and they would have. When they went back to Ohio the air density altitude was about 5000' and no, the aircraft didn't fly. It took them some time to figure out that barometric pressure was important when it comes to flying.
If you look farther into it, they tried the replica again a few days later and it DID fly. John Denver, the late singer, built a replica in the late 80's.... IT FLEW!!!!
"They were catapulted into the air and glided."- They did not use a catapult at Kitty Hawk. You are referencing the very 1st filming of a flight in Ohio. That was the 4th airplane they had built in Ohio (its here on TH-cam) . There was no catapult at Kitty Hawk…. There was no catapult…. At Kitty Hawk. If a fighter jet gets catapulted off the end of an aircraft Carrier, does it then not fly? They didn't build their catapult until 1904.
"Dumas was the first to fly"‐ According to the definition of heavier-than-air flight, no he didn't. His airplane did not have a proper propeller, it did not have a way of controlling the aircraft via ailerons or wing warping or a rudder that moved or elevators that went up-and-down…. He hopped. He used Hargrave cells, the same thing a box kite is made of, not a wing that generates lift by air moving over it. Just as you guys wanna claim the Wright brothers were catapulted... his airplane was just like a paper airplane. It was a powered box kite.
"Dumont is credited in 1906 with the first aeronautical achievement by the French."- The FAI wasn't incorporated until....... 1906. So of course they're wouldn't be anything before that year. They were also in Europe. The Wrights were in the U.S. When they went over in 1908 to show off the Wright flier, all of the French naysayers and doubters printed public retractions that they were wrong. Because of how the airplane flew they knew that the Wright brothers had been flying for years, while they were still only on short, uncoordinated, uncontrolled hops. They even said we are beaten, we no longer exist. That's how much they knew the Wrights had done it.
th-cam.com/video/SgoPPg8oVt8/w-d-xo.html
Please go do some research!!!!!
Santos-Dumont 14-bis, 1900 - 1906
Santos-Dumont Demoiselle 1907 - 1909
The first flight was made by Santos Dumond in 1906. The Wright brothers allegedly flew before him, but there is no record of this. Santos Dumond did it in front of the Eiffel Tower with half of Paris watching. And the plane took off by itself, not with that catapulted bullshit.
Please provide the proof that they did not use a catapult.
@@clking1938
1903: The Wright brothers fly 260 meters!
1905: Wilbur Wright flies 24 miles around Dayton, Ohio!
1906: Santos Dumont flies the 14-bis 50 meters.
@@clking1938
1903: The Wright brothers fly 260 meters!
1905: Wilbur Wright flies 24 miles around Dayton, Ohio!
1906: Santos Dumont flies the 14-bis 50 meters.
Thank you Santos Dumont for all your great effort and dedication put into making the first aeroplane to take off on its own.
The 1903 flyer took off on its own? Im not sure what you're getting at here.
Some of the world's remarkable innovation!
When Wright is in Paris to look for the description of the DUMONT machine, 1907, they bought an engine with the same characteristics as the Dumont engine, light and powerful
Please read enough to get your facts straight.
The contracted with three engine builders to produce engines for the anticipated European Wright Flyers.
The engine was a copy of the 38 hp. 1906 Wright upright 4. They were built under license. (specs available at Gutenberg Project, URL below)
Is there any evidence that the Wrights were interested in copying any of
the design features of the 14 bis? You claim that the copied the engine
but there is no evidence for this. The Antoinette 8V is quite different from the Wright upright 4.
They probably should have purchased the 1906 Antoinette 8V but they preferred their own design.
They were interested in keeping an eye on how much progress was being made in Europe.
The Wrights thought they had a 5 year head start but the news in 1906 indicated
that their lead might be less than they thought.
The main reason for the trip was to set up the production of the Wright Flyer. They brought the design for their latest upright Dayton engine and contracted Bariquand et Marré for several to be built to their specifications. French and German companies produced these under license.
For the specs for four of the Wright's engines, check out Project Gutenberg. www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38739
The engine used in 1908 was the 1906 upright 4.
The Wrights built 4 copies of the 2 place Wright Flyer 2. One was shipped to France. It had their latest 35+ hp engine.
It was fortunate that they had ordered 4 engines from their French engine builder because the Dayton engine threw a rod and had to be replaced. They replaced it with a French built replica of their Dayton engine: the 1906 upright 4.
The Wright-Taylor engine built under license by Bariquand et Marré was one that Santos Dumont recommended for the production version of the Demoiselle.
@@majorbett Boy, this is the truth. The wrights sent this letter to boil in 1907 asking for all the information related to the work of Dumont, the brothers wanted to know everything. They were in Paris for several months (they didn't register anything, they didn't prove anything) they bought a light and powerful engine similar to Dumont's engine. They return to the United States and finally , May 1908 presented the flyer in extremely poor flight conditions. They just flew 337 meters. This letter is published in L'envol magazine number: 39, 1932. A copy is worth more than $ 100,000 in any auction
.Dear Captain Ferber,
My brother Orville and I learned through reading the correspondence from Paris Published in the New York Herald, that the French public had highly appreciated a 220 metre flight in a straight line made by Mr. Santos-Dumont in an airplane of his own construction.
We would like very much to have exact reports of the experiments made at Bagatelle and hope that you will draw up for us a correct list of the trials and give us a description of the flying machine and drawing of same .
We have already seen by the picture in the New York Herald that the airplane rests on three wheels and we deduce from this that Mr. Santos-Dumont, in order to effect his start-off, has first to make a run over a long level field. With the aid of the starting-off, pillar that we use, Orville and I speedily go right up into the air in a much more practical fashion.
Now, in view of the fact that the French consider a 220 metre flight in a straight Line over the ground to be a “sensational performance”, we are sure to find a lot in Favour if we come to exhibit in France; but the voyage and the transportation of the Machine and the pillar cost much more money than the two poor Dayton mechanics can afford to spend; also, dear Captain Ferber, if French experts, under your management, desire to come to Dayton, we will give them a demonstration of the machine in the neghbouring field, flying for five minutes in a complete circle and let them have an option of the performance and release of the machine, for $50000 (fifty thousand dollars), cash down.
Your trully
Wilburn wright
@@gilberto2056 Thanks for the letter. Is there an associated URL?
I am not sure what May 1908 flight of 337 meters you refer to. Could it be the
flight where the engine failed? As you know, the 2 place Wright Flyer set several
distance records in France. The last one was for the Michelin prize for the longest
flight in 1908.
I don't find anything curious about the Wright's wanting to keep up with any
record setting flights in Europe.
@@majorbett The Wright brothers bought french engine Bariquand & Marre to power the planes they finally flew in front of credible witnesses in 1908
The articles, "Aviation in US. Seven french engines for the Wright brothers, L'Aérophile, Apr. 1, 1908, pag. 127" ( gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f137.image.r=wright%2040%20CV.langEN ) which says that the french company "Barriquaud-Mare" had just delivered seven 40 HP Antoinette like plane engines to the Wright brothers and "Progress of the Wright airplane experiments", Scientific American, May 23, 1908 ( www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001208/ ) that also talks about french engines, demonstrate, both of them, that the brothers needed in May 1908 far more powerful engines for far less spectacular flights than the ones allegedly performed in 1905. Also on Aug. 8, 1908, the Wright brothers using same french engines flew only 1 min and 45 sec in France, far from 38 minutes in Dayton in 1905 when a considerable weaker engine was used. These brothers have simply no credibility and only their officially witness flights can be trusted. The rest is their own fiction.
@@majorbett One detail, this letter was published in the magazine l'envol number 39, 1932. And the letter is extremely clear. THE WRIGHT WANTED DUMONT'S KNOWLEDGE. Until 1908 The brothers never submitt machines in flight.
Santos Dummont was the fist man to officially flight on planet earth.
That is why people that believe Santos Dumont's flights are sure about them, and people that believe in Wright brother's flights have faith on them.
The polemic goes forever because mixes fact with faith.
@@sanpol4399 While flights after 1906 had a way to make them official and credible, flights before this date did not. The question is not faith but rather relative plausibility of two stories: The Wrights account was very close to the truth or a conspiracy theory where the Wrights and all the witnesses were making things up. Some if not most of the early newspaper reports were inaccurate but this was not the fault of the Wrights.
@@majorbett If there was no effort by the Wright brothers to create any proof about the flights, are you 100% sure they did what they claimed ?
@@sanpol4399 Are you 100% sure that they didn't?
@@majorbett I am 100% sure there is no way to be sure they did what they claim about flying sustained up to 1908.
The burden of proof is on those who claim something, so, you should answer that question.🙂
If you ask someone if he is 100% sure about the historical flights Santos Dumont did with his 14-bis , the answer will be yes.
So, can I assume you are not sure about any self sustained Flyer 1,2,3 flight ?

Greatest service to humanity by R.brothers.
To counter the weight of the engine as it is also not in the center . By this way they centralised the Center of Gravity of the Plane
According to the International Aeronautics Federation (FIA), the British newspaper "The Independent" , the first public flight was made by a Brazilian. On October 23, 1906, the inventor Alberto Santos Dumont flew over the Bagatelle field in Paris.
The event was attended by more than a thousand people and was filmed. It was officially certified by the International Aeronautics Federation (FAI) fullfiling requirements such as being documented and taking off by its own means - without a ramp or catapult.
Source:
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/revealed-the-man-who-really-invented-the-aeroplane-421147.html
Nevertheless, it is important to note the concept of MULTIPLE DISCOVERY, as other improvements have come BEFORE the Wright brothers and Dumont.
Another interesting event was the Demoiselle aircraft projected by Dumont in 1908 the world’s first series production aircraft. Later, he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, leading to depression. He committed suicide tormented to see the aircraft invention used as a killing machine during WWI.
Thanks for making a very good point and adding a precious and undeniable piece of fact information to this video and making it more "complete" in my opinion.
Cool how come nobody in America knows this? Or if my teachers did know, why didn't they tell me? Oh yeah national bias. Lol cheeky teachers
yeah problem is that there is no proof that the wright brothers didnt use a catapult
even the Scientific American journal, the most respectable science journal in USA at that time, recognized Dumont as the 1st man to demonstrate that heavier than air flight was possible. Issue of 8th of November, 1906 - Scientific American
Excellent and Marvelous presentation.
The wing warping system they use is wonderfully simple and intuitive. I *knew* it worked as shown, but the details never came together until LE's animation. It's a shame it ended up being an impractical control system as airplanes evolved.
The Wright 's Last designed plane (just after Wilbur's death) finally abandoned the wing warping in favor of Ailerons
Wing Warping systems were tested long before the Wrights, the idea was old. It was tested by gallaudet in 1896.
14-bis used ailerons. Complete separated surfaces for that function.
@@sanpol4399 My understanding of the Calassa video on his replica 14 BIS was that the ailerons were too weak to function.
Gallaudet did build a kite and a glider that used Wing Warping. He also built a seaplane or hydroplane model with wing warping. Galllaudet made no attempt to patent his system of lateral control.
I am not aware of any earlier attempts to use wing warping for lateral control.
@UCH1GU7tG8Kns1eGkdurf5Gg needs to provide the references to support his claim thatthe idea predates Gallaudet.
www.flyingmachines.org/gallau.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edson_Fessenden_Gallaudet
A replica of the Curtis Hudson Flyer was also made of bamboo and did not have
any strength issues th-cam.com/video/13du2ZcopLg/w-d-xo.html&pp=QAFIAQ%3D%3D
@@majorbett The high dihedral 14-bis has can make it tuff for his ailerons to act with good efficiency, but the point is that the ailerons were there and the principles of working were correct.
If I tell for example that the Flyer 1 canard was nearly ineffective , and it was very easy to stall , making it quite impossible to regain control after stalling, does not make it not an elevator. It was an elevator, extremely problematic, but still an elevator.
School: nooo you can't make success without studying
Two dropouts: haha plein engin be goesing brrrrrrrrrrrrr
You can't make an informed comment without
studying. Please read up on a topic before
showing your ignorance. There are plenty
of biographies of the Wright Brothers.
also this meme sucks ,worst than
someone : ( asking ? )
someone else : ( yes.)
eww I mean , c'mon..
@@majorbett what I meant to say is that people always say "oh well to be a successful man you have to have as many academic titles as possible", when history is full of people with a little education that created the greatest inventions in history, the Wright brothers are a perfect example, they weren't the most sharpest at school and they led people to fly. What I am trying to say my friend is:
Please shut the fuck up before showing your shittery
Edit: I just noticed I wrote "the most sharpest" and I missed a C in accademic. My bad, english isn't my mother language, but seen as many english-talking people talk a shitty italian even though they study it I think I am allowed to make some little mistakes (yes, I am italian, go on with the "ayy pizza mafia mandolino" joke, at least our students don't have mass shooting as a school subject)
@@Momo_KawashimaI was objecting to what I saw as a cheap insult in your first comment.
What you are saying now sounds like a complete reversal. (paraphrased)
>
I have only read a couple books and some biographical articles on the web. None of them exactly indicated how good they were in school.
Wilbur couldn't have been too bad since he was expected to go to Yale for his college education. There are several stories (some incompatible) on why he did not complete his senior year. One story is that Wilbur suffered a horrible injury playing hockey. He not only dropped out of school but was
so depressed when he was convalescing, he almost checked out of life.
You said: "you can't make success without studying"
MB: ...but you can become successful by studying outside the formal classroom.
The Wright brothers did not achieve success without study. In the 1890's , it was possible (with a good tutor) to rise to the top of a new field. The Wrights had Octave Chanute and the Library of Congress to provide them with a reading lists and resources. They became voracious readers. They had learned how to learn on their own.
When I was teaching (I am a retired professor) it was my goal to inspire students to do the same.
Please one/(a couple) successful dropout stories doesn't mean that the 16yo dropout I see working at McDonald's will suddenly invent a teleportion device... Hmmm
“When we focus on our gratitude, the tide of disappointment goes out and the tide of love rushes in.”
Santos Dumont?
There is sort of a dispute about Santos Dumont , the Brazilian with a French name. There was a monument in his name where I lived in Sao Paulo. Don't know if still there at this time.
Brasilian hero!
@@MaikEletrica Ai brother isso ai mesmo.
Through catapult even a cow flies.
@@antoniohenrique2229 Yeah but does not sustain flight for long lol
awesome video! I have a question, how is this gyroscopic effect overcome on airplanes that only have one rotating blade on its nose?
There is another vertical blade spinning at tail .
I don't believe there is any method used to overcome this effect other than the pilot compensating using the rudder. In modern planes the inertia of the prop is not as significant when compared to the mass of the plane so the gyroscopic effect is weaker.
I Guess they provide This single propeller opposite direction to the engine shaft by using gear arrangements..... So, it can cancel Gyroscopic effect....
Guido Perdomo 👍
@@sparkindustry1 what's interesting to note is the gyroscopic precession on early rotary engine aircraft where both engine and prop rotated.
This produced different results when turning left or right.
Ingenious minds. Respect!
This video is just Awesome...!!🙌❤
Please make more videos related to aircraft and the mechanism of wing warping...
The pilot was off-centred to balance the weight of the engine, hence keeping the centre of mass on the midline(line of symmetry) of aircraft...
Wright brothers did not invented the plane.
@@gilberto2056 That is not an answer to Nagpur's question.
He wanted more information on wing warping. You could have referred him to Santos-Dumont's Demoiselle if there if you know of any information on how wing warping was adapted to a mono-plane.
I love this channel. Such great explanations
Thanks to the wright brothers for being the 1st plane inventors. Without this 2 brothers, there might be no airplane's for us to travel
one of the best innovation i hv ever seen, also awesome work done by these guys on the animation to make it so easily understandable... 🔥🔥
2:00 - Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! The real genius of the Wright Brothers was that they realized from their glider tests that all the wing lift data that had ever been published in scientific journals up to that point was WRONG. The methodology used to calculate the lift data was flawed and the results unreliable. They built their own wind tunnel in their bicycle shop and developed their own lift data which they then used to design the wings of their flyer. That was type of out-of-the-box thinking that allowed the Brothers Wright to succeed where so many others had failed.
There is a debate between those who think that the wing lift data calculated by Lilienthal and others was wrong and those who think the Wrights' interpretation of it was wrong. I will find the references if
you are interested in studying them.
@@stevebett4947 the wrights is within a couple tents of a percent of the exact amount we know today. Lilienthals was so far off and so bad it wasnt enough to keep a glider afloat unless jumping off a high surface with a huge headwind and even then not for long
@@Shadow0fd3ath24 For some reason the Santos Dumont fans don't mention the
Smeaton Coefficient. How can you make your point so it will have some resonance with those consider the Wrights' to be liars rather than flyers?
I don't think that Lilienthal was far off. There are good arguments defending
the accuracy of the Lilienthal data for his type of wing.
If you are interested, I can find the references. It will help if you read German.
I am not sure what Neal B means by "out of the box thinking."
Def: : to explore ideas that are creative and unusual and that are not limited or controlled by rules or tradition To solve this puzzle, you'll have to think outside the box.
The Wrights' certainly did not use the traditional analogies in visualizing the key problems of flight and what was needed to invent a practical airplane.
The traditional view from Caley to 1902 was to see the airplane as a ship on a sea of air. The needed LIFT, PROPULSION, and a RUDDER. The key problem was stability or how to keep the airship from tipping over. The Wrights' abandoned this analogy.
D... and Santos Dumont were clearly in the old camp. The problems they addressed
were propulsion (power to weight ratios) - lift - and stability. The 14-bix had a rudder but it was limited in its ability to keep the flying machine on course.
My comments are already to long. See if you can find one idea that is worth
discussing which might also address a concern of the Santos Dumont and
Lilienthal enthusiasts.
LINK simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_
SEA OF AIR... Cayley's concept that continued until the Wright Brothers
It was the prevailing analogy. an airship was literally a boat in a sea of air.
Bernoulli used in to explain his concept of air pressure.
SB: In his case, the analogy worked. It does not work for Cayley.
. . . atmospheric sea which contributes a large amount of pressure energy.
pressure that changes with depth and provides buoyancy-for fish in water and balloons in air.
The forces that apply to movement through air apply to movement through water as well.
We are indeed bottom dwellers in a “sea of air.”
Invited discussants.
@Neil B, @Seth B,
@Marco Papa, @asucar chocolate,
@Mrunal Swamy,
@Christian Engineer
@Deepak Sankhyan
@majorbett
Great invention by Wright Brothers. Thanks.
Did you know that the Wrights' engine was 325 rpm and that this is equivalent to the rotation of a fan?
Here is the description of the Wright 1906 engine along with earlier versions.
The engine rpm was about 1000. The prop speed might have been around 325 rpm.
Two 8 ft. fans with efficient propellers would produce quite a bit of thrust.
Characteristics of the Wright Flight Engines
REF: www.gutenberg.org/files/38739/38739-h/38739-h.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
_1903 _1904-1905 _1908-1911 _1911-1915
First flight Experimental Demonstrations service_
engine[a]_ flights_ and
service_
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyl./Form 4/flat 4/flat 4/vertical 6/vertical
Bore and stroke (in.) 4×4 4-1/8×4 4-3/8×4 4-3/8×4-1/2
Displacement (cu. in.) 201 214 240 406
Horsepower 8.25-16 15-21 28-42 50-75
RPM 670-1200 1070-1360 1325-1500 1400-1560
MEP 49-53 52-57 70-87 70-94
Weight (lb) 140-180 160-170 160-180 265-300
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@majorbett no. Wright brothers presented 12 hp in 1903. 16 hp in 1904 and 20 hp 1905. These motors have not potence for run, takeoff and land under its own power. Don't have physical conditions for motorized flight. 2003 the replicas's nasa proved the incapacity for flight. The 2003's replica has 50 hp motor.!!!!
@@selmanedel7973 Where are you getting your information? The exact replica had the same engine as the 1903 Wright Flyer. Here is the data on the first three Wright -Taylor engines. www.gutenberg.org/files/38739/38739-h/38739-h.htm
I don't doubt that some replicas were not exact and may have used more
powerful engines. Please identify the one with a 50 hp engine.
The 1906 Taylor-Wright vertical 4 produced around 38 hp.
It was built under license by a french company: bariquand et marre and a German company in addition to Dayton.
The "NASA studies" did not prove the "incapacity for flight". They indicated that the 1903 Flyer was very unstable and almost impossible to fly. They thought that the flight distance would normally be in the 100-120 ft. range. When the exact
replicas were flight tested with headwinds in the 15 mph range, this proved to be the case. The Flyer needed the 15+ mph headwind. In 1903, they were more than 20 mph.
If you are going to refer to the "NASA" studies that were done in preparation for the 2003 Centennial and Hyde's exact replica, then provide the URL or reference.
@@majorbett in wikipedia of wright brothers, new between 1903/05, the brothers declarations in diary, the scientific community of the world, the nasa's replica in centennial 17 years's work for nothing, nasa proved all, the replica don't flew, jack cherne built one repkica in 1998 an wind tunels's tests the machine was incontrolable!!!! Gut, more study, guy.
@@majorbett th-cam.com/video/gmVf023EvWA/w-d-xo.html
Uhuuu this replica has 50 hp engine and don't flew.
nasa's replica.!!!!
the title of the link is strange! perfect replicas of this engineering were built and the replicas in the original conditions do not fly.
Exact.
th-cam.com/video/yHxvdV9elL8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/o1mscspl-VU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/u3ZsvctI3IQ/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/o-wne_bQZjA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/gmVf023EvWA/w-d-xo.html
The replica 1903 flyer did not fly at 10 am on Dec. 17 2003. There were three built and two of the test flights were marginally successful in November and early December.
The videos are available. There was a 15 mph headwind on these test dates.
I don't think there was any headwind at the time of the pre-scheduled flight.
Sam Pol provides the URLs for John Denver's flight and for Dr. Kevin Kochersberger first test flight of about 100 ft. on Nov. 20 2003. th-cam.com/video/o1mscspl-VU/w-d-xo.html,
I noticed that the ground crew did not hold on to the wing tips. They may have held on to them in 1903.
@@majorbett Do you personally believe the Flyer 1 could fly sustained without any wind on a flat surface ?
@@majorbett in john denver video the machine without winds on the ground. With power winds, glided only.
@@sanpol4399 To sustain flight, the craft needs a windspeed of 35 mph over the airfoil wings. A 12 hp. engine
is fully capable of doing this. The problem is that the 1903 Wright Flyer was so unstable that it rarely sustained flight. The longest flight was an alleged to be 57 - 59 sec.
Lift, thrust, drag and weight were first identified by George Cayley, the pioneer of aeronautics, 100yrs before the Wright Bros who read his papers and followed his principles.
Cayley designed the aerofoil and built the first manned glider. (He also invented the the wire wheel, for lightness.)
If there'd been a practical source of motive power at the start of the 19th Century, he could've done powered flight.
I just saw your comment and put my own before I saw it Your correct Caleys principles of Flight for his Aircraft used by the Wright Brothers in their Aeroplane which is a Powered Aircraft. Caley made in Yorkshire😊
everything presented in this video was never presented publicly between 1903-1905 !!!
Wright brothers appearence in real motorized flight 1908 only
That's funny
Fantastic. Absolutely great.
Just came here to say that the first airplane was made by Santos Dumont.
The first take-off (which proves that the thing is a plane aftreall) od Wright Flyer was 3 years before Dumont took off. But it doesn't matter that much, all pioneer aviators are heroes!
B4 the Wright Brothers and Santos Dumont there was.. www.google.com/search?q=the+first+airplane+whitehead&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNSrkJ9EZXoyWb2yBbYTM11qr4UkkA:1579335996893&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=RzEJXnDT0iHtnM%253A%252CBJVvdxtH-WWIwM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQbYngLr5_p0PTFSTTy-1poVGCRDQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4ns2I3YznAhVDI6wKHbPTAjQQ9QEwAHoECAYQAw#imgrc=wSLS0aU3x2twrM:&vet=1
@@DopravniPoradce There isn't consistent proofs of the Brother's flight in this time. They didnt took footage being that they could have done it, as well as they didnt call any scientist to comprove it. But they tried to sell the patent to everyone refusing to demonstrate the effectiveness of the invent, so greedy they are.
@@DopravniPoradce All pioneers were important, but the first plane that took of and flew by itself and nobody doubts that the flights were made. was the 14-bis invented and piloted by Santos Dumont.
It was much lighter than the Flyer and had a V8 engine with 50 hp.
The Flyer just could not Fly without a huge external power, because was 340,2 kg and had only 12 hp. The propellers turned really slow, at just 350 rpm.
The Flyer
@@antoniohenrique2229 Exactly. Before 1908 there is no proof about any sustainable flight made by the Wright Brothers.
The Flyer 1 had 340,2 kg and only 12 hp.
Impossible to fly sustainable with this power x weight ratio.
Is This flyer 1. !?!?!?
Wonderful technique which lead the world toward another direction.
They are so intelligent & hardworking # #Respect🙂🙏🏻🌹
For flyer1 Weight in excess!!!!
The plane went circling counterclockwise. slightly off center so we can see clearly the person went flying for more than an hour. Brilliant, well thought... MASTERPIECE.
Santos Dumont é verdadeiro inventor do avião...os irmãos wright usaram uma catapulta para subir.
So if you catapult off a carrier... you're not flying?
What did the schools teach you?
@@brothergrimaldus3836this airplane never flyed again. There aren't prove of this flight. The first proved flight of the brothers was 1908.
Could you do a about 14-Bis by Santos Dumont?
They will never do it. Americans don't want to talk about. But the truth is that Santos Dumont is the inventor of the airplane.
@@SrGanso-tv6mw claimed:
"Americans don't want to talk about Santos Dumont."
SB: Why wouldn't Americans want to talk about Santos Dumont and any other aviation pioneer?
There is an article on aviation records that includes Santos Dumont and excludes the Wright Brothers. It was reprinted in Readers' Digest. How could this happen if what you say is true?
There is good empirical and historical evidence that Santos Dumont was the first to set a record that complied with the French FAI rules.
Except in Brazil, there is no consensus on who invented the airplane. Many people made contributions.
@@stevebett4947 SANTOS DUMONT INVENTED THE AIRPLANE
@@joy_hipermorte Can you elaborate? It doesn't seem to be a response to my comment.
JM: "Santos Dumont invented the airplane."
Please critique my comments:
There is good empirical and historical evidence that Santos Dumont was the first to set a record that complied with the French FAI rules in 1906.
There is no consensus on who invented the airplane. Many people made contributions.
What were the contribution of Santos Dumont's bis-14 and why were they significant?
- - - - -
Sr. Ganso claimed:
"Americans don't want to talk about Santos Dumont."
SB: Why wouldn't Americans want to talk about Santos Dumont and any other aviation pioneer?
There is an article on aviation records that includes Santos Dumont and excludes the Wright Brothers.
It was reprinted in Readers' Digest. How could this happen if what you say is true?
There is good empirical and historical evidence that Santos Dumont was the first to set a record that complied with the French FAI rules in 1906.
Except in Brazil, there is no consensus on who invented the airplane. Many people made contributions.
SB2: Both the Wright Brothers and Santos Dumont read Sr. George Cayley's theories and speculations.
Cayley was the first to list the 4 requirements for flight.
He also speculated that it would be a long time before the propulsion necessary for true flight would become available
He said this after his flying machine failed to achieve more than a short hop with its 8 hp engine.
Cayley did not predict a date, but others have. There would be no true flight by a heavier than air manned aircraft until 1951.
@@joy_hipermorte wrote: SANTOS DUMONT INVENTED THE AIRPLANE
SB: Por favor, critique meus comentários:
Há boas evidências empíricas e históricas de que Santos Dumont foi o primeiro a estabelecer um recorde de conformidade com as regras da FAI francesa em 1906.
Não há consenso sobre quem inventou o avião. Muitas pessoas fizeram contribuições.
Quais foram as contribuições do bis-14 de Santos Dumont e por que foram significativas?
Did you know that the replicas that were already built in the original conditions proved that the Wrights did not fly?
How would you know that it was built to original specifications? Did the replica builder actually use the right composition in medals and rope strength per weight?
Alot of things were made completely differently way back then.
How do you explain the two videos of exact replicas flying when there was a headwind of 15 mph or more.
One test flight was in November. The other in early December.
The two exact replicas did not fly well but the did take off when there was a 15 mph headwind.
They flew 100-120 ft. in about 15 sec. Similar to the first flight on Dec. 17, 1903. . .
when the headwinds were over 20 mph.
@@MarcABrown-tt1fp Read up on Hyde's construction of the exact replicas. Every effort was made to duplicate what was available in 1902-3 and to avoid using anything modern.
@@majorbett
MB: I forgot to include the link to the tests that were made before
the Centennial.
th-cam.com/video/o1mscspl-VU/w-d-xo.html
Both times the exact replica of the 1903 Wright flyer took off
and flew about 100 ft. The flights were successful as proof of concept. It also identified problems suggested what needed to be upgraded.
On November 20, 2003, Dr. Kevin Kochersberger piloted the 1903 Wright Experience Replica Flyer.
With 15 mph winds he flew a distance of nearly 100 feet.
th-cam.com/video/o1mscspl-VU/w-d-xo.html
tests done with the perfect replica of the centennial had extremely strong headwinds. the wind could be heard in the recordings. The same replica without strong headwind was tested and not took off.
Maybe they wanted to balance the engine weight with the pilots own weight