Certainly what happened at Kitty Hawk was important, but more weight needs to be given to the Wright's abstract thinking and models and experiments in the back of their bike shop. Two men took 5 or 6 years, working largely by themselves, with little to no outside funding, and went from a rough concept of a kite, to fully controlled motorized flight. That would be like Steve Jobs developing the transistor, the integrated circuit, the computer with software, all in ten years, by himself, working in his basement, while working as a door to door salesman----or something like that. I don't think history gives them enough credit, largely because they were inventers first and weren't seeking fame. Also, didn't the Wright brothers basically put their plane in a box for along time because they wanted to get a patent on some of their work?
Their flying machines were initially designed to be packed up and shipped. Hence, the very last thing they wanted to do was expand the distance between the back of the wing and the rudder. But when they did, everything at Huffman Prairie changed. Bicycle mechanic is frightening subculture. You walk in looking for an inner tube and wind up talking with guy who thinks he's an aerospace engineer.
I agree. They had to discover and completely rewrite "what everyone knew" about wings as published by previous experimenters (i.e. lift/drag coefficients vs. camber and angle of attack). They had to figure out a way to create 3-axis! control (pitch, roll and yaw). They needed to scientifically analyze propellers and adapt them to air rather than water, as well as create an engine with a realistic power-to-weight ratio... Then - most significantly - They had to climb onto their inventions and test them to gradually learn the Skills of Flying - without killing themselves! They deserved to get rich from all this risk and hard work - and they deserved more credit from their competitors (Langley; Smithsonian Institute etc.) and their first potential customers (i.e. the US Army) gave them.
Point of clarification - This narrator uses the term "Rudder" a few times when he is actually referring to the small, forward 'winglet.' Now-a-days, we would call that a Canard. Canards (like elevators) produce and control pitching movement of an aircraft. Later on, the Wrights also added a vertical control 'winglet' behind the main wings to control yaw. This is (technically speaking) now what the term 'Rudder' means.
I won't be able to do it next, but I did add it to my list. I'm not familiar with that one, but it looks interesting at first glance. My next video will be my Christmas special on the Halifax explosion.
EnergeticWaves Yes, I write the scripts myself. I recently began including sources in the descriptions of my videos, but this video was uploaded before I started doing that. The foundational source for this video is David McCullough’s book on the Wright Brothers, but I used several supplementary sources as well.
SB: I was unable to locate Borba's comment. Robson Borba's comment Wright Brothers First Flight, 1903
Marcos Palhares Steve Bett do you have this photo? REPLY SB: I have seen it before. What was the caption. Does it indicate a date? Many photos of the Wrights are not correctly identified. Was this supposed to be evidence for something?
majorbett: TGBM Thanks for your response. @@TheGreatBigMove I was having problems with the youtube editor and included things that should have been edited to improve communication. The original comment by Marcos Palhares include a photo of the WBs that did not come through in my reply. That alone would limit the intelligibility of the comment. I asked, "What was the caption on the photo?" (there was no caption on the image that was posted.) I asked, "Is there any indication of a date of the photo." ? If it is a frame of a motion picture, then it would be after 1907. Does this help? I am still trying to edit the messed up comment.
The Flyer never took off on its own merit because it did not have a powerful engine to get it off the ground. It was a very heavy machine with an extremely weak engine. The United States military did several tests and created a perfect replica and put it to flight. It did not fly; it crashed and broke. Santos Dumont's plane flew and stayed fully in the air, even with a very heavy engine, because its duck design helped with air resistance and it took off high because of the power of the engine used. So yes, Santos Dumont was the first to invent the airplane. The brothers only created the Flyer, which was a glider.
There is NO plane flight before Santos Dumont. Santos Dumont IS THE FATHER OF AVIATION. The wrights designed a simple glider, the patent is for a glider, and they were only able to fly with this glider because they bought an airplane engine in France in 1908. The wrights never stopped using the CATAPULT, and their glider never had landing wheels. SANTOS DUMONT was the first man to fly in 1906. He designed the 14-Bis engine. The wrights were only able to glide because they COPIED in 1908 SANTOS DUMONT's experiments of 1906, when 14-Bis had already been presented to the world (SANTOS DUMONT said NOTHING about these wrights, NOR did he know them, it was they, wrights, everything that was done in aviation after 1906, after SANTOS DUMONT's invention). WITHOUT the French airplane engine, purchased in France by the wrights in 1908, these wrights would NEVER have made their glider glide!!! The wrights had no shame in copying post-1906 experiences and applying them to their glider to "justify" their trip to France in 1908. They had to hurriedly buy a French plane engine to be able to support their glider, impulsively by CATAPULT!!! NO replica of the wright glider worked. ALL replicas of SANTOS DUMONT's 14-Bis and Demoiselle flew and worked. EVERY SERIOUS aviation engineer knows that 14-Bis is the origin of the modern airplane. A glider is NOT an airplane!!! Narratives without proof remain narratives. SANTOS DUMONT flew in 1906 with his 14-Bis. These wrights glided with their glider ONLY in 1908, with a CATAPULT and using a French aircraft engine, bought in a hurry. The wrights NEVER, EVER, managed to create/design their own engine that could make their glider take off and support the glide. WITHOUT the engine that they, wright, bought in France in 1908, from third parties, they would have been very embarrassed. They SIMPLY went to France in 1908, saw how things were done since 1906 and then bought a French airplane engine. SANTOS DUMONT, on the contrary, demonstrated everything clearly, without subterfuge.
Whitehead built something g that looked like an airplane but there is absolutely no credible proof of it flying. And there is no scientific data or experimentation of the machine. The Wrights not only clearly invented a flying machine, they systematically engineered the science of flight into a practical flying machine. Thousands of photos, documents and videos to prove it. Whitehead has ZILCH.
The Wright brothers lost a lot of time on courts, fighting other inventors that were trying to fly an airplane. This selfish action caused a huge delay in the USA aviation development. There is no proof that any Flyer flew before 1908, and that is the reason non of the replicas made so far can fly sustained. Not so difficult to realize when a 340,2 kg Flyer replica, with only 12 hp and props turning at a ceiling fan rpm meets reality. It just doesn't work. The first man that flew and nobody doubts, was Alberto Santos Dumont, with his 14-bis. He had a V8 with 50 hp. The Wright just flew in public in 1908 after buying a light and powerful European engine. There was a reason Wilbur went to Europe.🙂
San Pol --The usual nonsense comment from you, repeated across several threads and a year’s time, never assimilating any of the corrections you’ve been given. You’re chanting dogma, not offering evidence.
@@cardinalRG @Gardenal R G. Instead of posting and fade out, try to debate facts. I invite you to post questions here at the price of you not running away again when I make simple questions about Wright brothers suposed flights. If you want to debate , be my guest. Post your question here.😉👇
@@sanpol4399 --You haven’t asked any questions, you’ve just made statements, most of which are false claims. You and I have exchanged before, and I’ve corrected those claims, yet you continue to repeat them. So you’re not being ignored, you’re only pretending that you are. Try assimilating what you should have learned in previous debates, so that you can present an improved argument in a future debate. Otherwise, I’m not interested in repeating the same song and dance.
@@cardinalRG Not nice from you telling what did not happen in reality. Well, since you did not take the opportunity of starting doing questions related to the subject can I start? Will you stay or will fade out again?🙂
@@sanpol4399 --There seems to be a language barrier between us, because you haven’t understood what I’ve written here. Perhaps you should try an online English translator. At any rate, I’ll re-phrase my last comment for you: If you assimilate corrections given to you previously, and then present an improved argument, then I’ll consider exchanging with you. Otherwise, it would just be a pointless repeat of past exchanges, and I’m not interested in wasting time like that. The choice is yours.
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to choose the next video topic? Looking for bonus content? Join The Great Big Move on Patreon! www.patreon.com/TheGreatBigMove
What an amazing view it must have been for the people at the time to see that thing glide around in the sky!
"From so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." :)
Certainly what happened at Kitty Hawk was important, but more weight needs to be given to the Wright's abstract thinking and models and experiments in the back of their bike shop. Two men took 5 or 6 years, working largely by themselves, with little to no outside funding, and went from a rough concept of a kite, to fully controlled motorized flight. That would be like Steve Jobs developing the transistor, the integrated circuit, the computer with software, all in ten years, by himself, working in his basement, while working as a door to door salesman----or something like that. I don't think history gives them enough credit, largely because they were inventers first and weren't seeking fame.
Also, didn't the Wright brothers basically put their plane in a box for along time because they wanted to get a patent on some of their work?
Their flying machines were initially designed to be packed up and shipped. Hence, the very last thing they wanted to do was expand the distance between the back of the wing and the rudder. But when they did, everything at Huffman Prairie changed.
Bicycle mechanic is frightening subculture. You walk in looking for an inner tube and wind up talking with guy who thinks he's an aerospace engineer.
I agree. They had to discover and completely rewrite "what everyone knew" about wings as published by previous experimenters (i.e. lift/drag coefficients vs. camber and angle of attack). They had to figure out a way to create 3-axis! control (pitch, roll and yaw). They needed to scientifically analyze propellers and adapt them to air rather than water, as well as create an engine with a realistic power-to-weight ratio... Then - most significantly - They had to climb onto their inventions and test them to gradually learn the Skills of Flying - without killing themselves! They deserved to get rich from all this risk and hard work - and they deserved more credit from their competitors (Langley; Smithsonian Institute etc.) and their first potential customers (i.e. the US Army) gave them.
Thank you, as a pilot I burst into tears watching how history was made
Excellent summary and images.
Point of clarification - This narrator uses the term "Rudder" a few times when he is actually referring to the small, forward 'winglet.' Now-a-days, we would call that a Canard. Canards (like elevators) produce and control pitching movement of an aircraft. Later on, the Wrights also added a vertical control 'winglet' behind the main wings to control yaw. This is (technically speaking) now what the term 'Rudder' means.
As a new sub I’m surprised that you don’t have many more. Great work.
Thanks, Buster! I appreciate that.
0
Thank you for taking me on an adventure I am new subscriber and I look forward to taking regular adventures with you
Awesome video! Looking forward to part 2
how much is $70,000 today 11:31
my estimation $7 million
You could be right--I'm definitely not an expert on the subject. How do you do your estimation?
@@TheGreatBigMove this was only a guess based on other estimations done in the past few centuries by buildings or ships
Around $1.8 million. The U.S. dollar is worth about 4 percent what it was worth before 1913.
Is Part 2 available?
phenomenal video keep em coming
More to come! New videos every third Thursday. Next up is RMS Olympic on April 2nd.
When will we have part 2?
Honestly, not for some time. I’ll be doing airships part 2 before I do part 2 of this. Part 2 in both cases is world war 1.
@@TheGreatBigMove thanks for the great content
Without these guys, we wouldn’t have flight as we know it today.
can you do the rain hill trails next
I won't be able to do it next, but I did add it to my list. I'm not familiar with that one, but it looks interesting at first glance. My next video will be my Christmas special on the Halifax explosion.
The Wright brothers: * are creative people *
Also the Wright brothers: * names their aircraft "the flyer" *
All their creativity went into their engineering, not so much in naming things.
The first flight on December 17, 1903 was by Orville Wright, not Wilbur Wright as the film states. Orville won the coin toss.
It would turn out years later that counter rotating propellers ALSO help with prop wash turbulence
Do you write these yourself?
EnergeticWaves Yes, I write the scripts myself. I recently began including sources in the descriptions of my videos, but this video was uploaded before I started doing that. The foundational source for this video is David McCullough’s book on the Wright Brothers, but I used several supplementary sources as well.
Good job! Way better than the crap i upload!
SB: I was unable to locate Borba's comment.
Robson Borba's comment
Wright Brothers First Flight, 1903
Marcos Palhares
Steve Bett do you have this photo?
REPLY
SB: I have seen it before. What was the caption. Does it indicate a date?
Many photos of the Wrights are not correctly identified.
Was this supposed to be evidence for something?
You seem to be speaking gibberish, sir. I’m not able to reply to your comment because it’s unintelligible.
majorbett: TGBM Thanks for your response.
@@TheGreatBigMove I was having problems with the youtube editor and
included things that should have been edited to improve communication.
The original comment by Marcos Palhares include a photo of the WBs
that did not come through in my reply.
That alone would limit the intelligibility of the comment.
I asked, "What was the caption on the photo?"
(there was no caption on the image that was posted.)
I asked, "Is there any indication of a date of the photo." ?
If it is a frame of a motion picture, then it would be after 1907.
Does this help? I am still trying to edit the messed up comment.
First flight is Abbas ibn Firnas, 852
The Flyer never took off on its own merit because it did not have a powerful engine to get it off the ground. It was a very heavy machine with an extremely weak engine. The United States military did several tests and created a perfect replica and put it to flight. It did not fly; it crashed and broke. Santos Dumont's plane flew and stayed fully in the air, even with a very heavy engine, because its duck design helped with air resistance and it took off high because of the power of the engine used. So yes, Santos Dumont was the first to invent the airplane. The brothers only created the Flyer, which was a glider.
Link to ep 2 in the discription
Where?
What's even cooler..........THE GOODYEAR BLIMP.
There is NO plane flight before Santos Dumont. Santos Dumont IS THE FATHER OF AVIATION. The wrights designed a simple glider, the patent is for a glider, and they were only able to fly with this glider because they bought an airplane engine in France in 1908. The wrights never stopped using the CATAPULT, and their glider never had landing wheels. SANTOS DUMONT was the first man to fly in 1906. He designed the 14-Bis engine. The wrights were only able to glide because they COPIED in 1908 SANTOS DUMONT's experiments of 1906, when 14-Bis had already been presented to the world (SANTOS DUMONT said NOTHING about these wrights, NOR did he know them, it was they, wrights, everything that was done in aviation after 1906, after SANTOS DUMONT's invention). WITHOUT the French airplane engine, purchased in France by the wrights in 1908, these wrights would NEVER have made their glider glide!!! The wrights had no shame in copying post-1906 experiences and applying them to their glider to "justify" their trip to France in 1908. They had to hurriedly buy a French plane engine to be able to support their glider, impulsively by CATAPULT!!! NO replica of the wright glider worked. ALL replicas of SANTOS DUMONT's 14-Bis and Demoiselle flew and worked. EVERY SERIOUS aviation engineer knows that 14-Bis is the origin of the modern airplane. A glider is NOT an airplane!!! Narratives without proof remain narratives. SANTOS DUMONT flew in 1906 with his 14-Bis. These wrights glided with their glider ONLY in 1908, with a CATAPULT and using a French aircraft engine, bought in a hurry. The wrights NEVER, EVER, managed to create/design their own engine that could make their glider take off and support the glide. WITHOUT the engine that they, wright, bought in France in 1908, from third parties, they would have been very embarrassed. They SIMPLY went to France in 1908, saw how things were done since 1906 and then bought a French airplane engine. SANTOS DUMONT, on the contrary, demonstrated everything clearly, without subterfuge.
Cool
Hey I live in Dayton Ohio.
Shame Henry Ford took their home
wow
Gus Whitehead should to mentioned
Whitehead built something g that looked like an airplane but there is absolutely no credible proof of it flying. And there is no scientific data or experimentation of the machine. The Wrights not only clearly invented a flying machine, they systematically engineered the science of flight into a practical flying machine. Thousands of photos, documents and videos to prove it. Whitehead has ZILCH.
5/5 video
Flyer flights are impossible from flat surfaces.
Flowed over lusitania a lot of history was created
Chúc thầy lộc ngày càng thành công hơn và hạnh phúc bên gia đình 殺殺
The Wright brothers lost a lot of time on courts, fighting other inventors that were trying to fly an airplane. This selfish action caused a huge delay in the USA aviation development.
There is no proof that any Flyer flew before 1908, and that is the reason non of the replicas made so far can fly sustained.
Not so difficult to realize when a 340,2 kg Flyer replica, with only 12 hp and props turning at a ceiling fan rpm meets reality. It just doesn't work.
The first man that flew and nobody doubts, was Alberto Santos Dumont, with his 14-bis.
He had a V8 with 50 hp. The Wright just flew in public in 1908 after buying a light and powerful European engine. There was a reason Wilbur went to Europe.🙂
San Pol --The usual nonsense comment from you, repeated across several threads and a year’s time, never assimilating any of the corrections you’ve been given. You’re chanting dogma, not offering evidence.
@@cardinalRG @Gardenal R G. Instead of posting and fade out, try to debate facts.
I invite you to post questions here at the price of you not running away again when I make simple questions about Wright brothers suposed flights.
If you want to debate , be my guest. Post your question here.😉👇
@@sanpol4399 --You haven’t asked any questions, you’ve just made statements, most of which are false claims. You and I have exchanged before, and I’ve corrected those claims, yet you continue to repeat them. So you’re not being ignored, you’re only pretending that you are. Try assimilating what you should have learned in previous debates, so that you can present an improved argument in a future debate. Otherwise, I’m not interested in repeating the same song and dance.
@@cardinalRG Not nice from you telling what did not happen in reality.
Well, since you did not take the opportunity of starting doing questions related to the subject can I start? Will you stay or will fade out again?🙂
@@sanpol4399 --There seems to be a language barrier between us, because you haven’t understood what I’ve written here. Perhaps you should try an online English translator. At any rate, I’ll re-phrase my last comment for you: If you assimilate corrections given to you previously, and then present an improved argument, then I’ll consider exchanging with you. Otherwise, it would just be a pointless repeat of past exchanges, and I’m not interested in wasting time like that. The choice is yours.