Wright Brother's First Flight Anniversary

[Eric Mc]

120 years today -

[2xChevrons]

Has any other transport technology advanced so fast and as far as aviation?

Nine years after this photo was taken the RFC introduced the BE2, a recognisably 'modern' (for a certain use of the word) biplane with what is now the standard basic layout for single-engine prop aircraft, was aerodynamically stable, had multiple practical utility uses, was mass-produced and could reach 10,000 feet and fly for several hours. And the BE2 wasn't even an especially good or optimised aircraft.

Twenty years after the Wright Brothers' first flight you had agile, fast, deadly fighter aircraft, lumbering bombers capable of carrying a ton of ordnance many hundreds of miles, all-metal ground-attack aircraft, flying boats able to troll around the skies for a dozen hours, high-altitude interceptors etc.

30 years on came the Boeing 247 and, 32 years to the day, came the DC-3, which made civilian air travel practically reliable and commercially viable.

Within 45 years of Orville tottering a few feet off the ground for 12 seconds, Chuck Yeager went faster than the speed of sound at 43,000 feet.

The DH Comet introduced civilian jet transport within 50 years, and the Boeing 707 kicked off the Jet Age shortly after.

Well within a human lifespan we went from the tentative, unstable, barely-controlled hops of the Wright Flyer to 90 passengers sipping champagne travelling at Mach 2.0 in Concorde. Orville Wright himself lived long enough to see Yeager's supersonic flight and to fly across the USA on a Lockheed Constellation.

[Panamax]

I've visited Kitty Hawk. It's at the northern end of the Outer Banks on the east coast of North Carolina. There's a rather grand monument there and also a very fine museum, which includes a replica of the original Wright Flyer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers_Nati...

Wright Brothers chose the location because of its consistent and fairly steady wind conditions. Their biggest problem was poor power to weight ratio of early internal combustion engines and using this location was the equivalent of an aircraft carrier steaming into the wind when launching planes. On the day I visited there was a big kite flying event in progress so I can vouch for the wind conditions!
Having just clicked on the link above I'm saddened to note reported closure in 2014 of the museum I mentioned above. I guess they must have been short of visitors, perched right out on the coast.

[GliderRider]

Thanks for the reminder Eric.

Having been to Kitty Hawk, and read 'The Bishop's Boys' by Tom Crouch, I consider the fourth flight the Wrights made 120 years ago today, to be the first true sustained, powered, controlled flight. The rest were a quick zoom up through the wind gradient to gain energy and a powered glide back down.

The 1903 Wright Flyer I was akin to riding an unicycle, being unstable in all axes. Only the modified 1905 Wright Flyer III with a lengthened 'fuselage' fore and aft and a small amount of dihedral, had sufficient stability for longer flights.

[GliderRider]

Panamax said:

Having just clicked on the link above I'm saddened to note reported closure in 2014 of the museum I mentioned above. I guess they must have been short of visitors, perched right out on the coast.

Panamax, That's very sad to read. I went in 1988 and was struck at just how passionate and knowledgable the Park Rangers were who gave the lectures in the theatre there.
It is remote, but anyone with an interest in aviation should make the pilgrimage. The only other place I found with the same 'zeitgeist' is at Wasserkuppe, where the Germans started soaring in the 1920s.

[pete]

I’ve seen lots of Wright Flyer replicas in museums, so wasn’t surprised to see one in the Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian in Washington. What was a surprise was the realisation it was the *actual* 1903 Wright Flyer, not a replica!

[spitfire-ian]

pete said:

I’ve seen lots of Wright Flyer replicas in museums, so wasn’t surprised to see one in the Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian in Washington. What was a surprise was the realisation it was the *actual* 1903 Wright Flyer, not a replica!

I did exactly the same when I saw it.

[LimaDelta]

This YF-12 flew 60 years ago, and 60 years from the first flight, and the A-12 first flight (1962) was closer to the Wright brothers' first flight than to today.



I know the passing of time is literally the most predictable of phenomena, but it does surprise sometimes.

[Fast and Spurious]

2xChevrons said:

Has any other transport technology advanced so fast and as far as aviation?

Nine years after this photo was taken the RFC introduced the BE2, a recognisably 'modern' (for a certain use of the word) biplane with what is now the standard basic layout for single-engine prop aircraft, was aerodynamically stable, had multiple practical utility uses, was mass-produced and could reach 10,000 feet and fly for several hours. And the BE2 wasn't even an especially good or optimised aircraft.

Twenty years after the Wright Brothers' first flight you had agile, fast, deadly fighter aircraft, lumbering bombers capable of carrying a ton of ordnance many hundreds of miles, all-metal ground-attack aircraft, flying boats able to troll around the skies for a dozen hours, high-altitude interceptors etc.

30 years on came the Boeing 247 and, 32 years to the day, came the DC-3, which made civilian air travel practically reliable and commercially viable.

Within 45 years of Orville tottering a few feet off the ground for 12 seconds, Chuck Yeager went faster than the speed of sound at 43,000 feet.

The DH Comet introduced civilian jet transport within 50 years, and the Boeing 707 kicked off the Jet Age shortly after.

Well within a human lifespan we went from the tentative, unstable, barely-controlled hops of the Wright Flyer to 90 passengers sipping champagne travelling at Mach 2.0 in Concorde. Orville Wright himself lived long enough to see Yeager's supersonic flight and to fly across the USA on a Lockheed Constellation.

Spaceflight.
Went from nothing to the A4 in Oct 1942, first rocket in space, thereafter it took first mammal (monkey) up in 1949. Copied and developed by the USSR, first man in space in 1961. USA/German development saw first man on moon in 1969. Beat that!!!

[Eric Mc]

pete said:

I’ve seen lots of Wright Flyer replicas in museums, so wasn’t surprised to see one in the Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian in Washington. What was a surprise was the realisation it was the *actual* 1903 Wright Flyer, not a replica!

Until 1948, it was actually displayed at The Science Museum London. The Wrights had a long standing battle with The Smithsonian (the Smithsonian had backed their rival, Samuel Langley). However, after World War 2, and after the remaining Wright brother, Orville, had died, the Flyer was given to The Smithsonian.

It's one of the reasons why later, in 1970, NASA donated the Apollo 10 Command Module to The Science Museum where it remains on display to this day.

[Eric Mc]

Fast and Spurious said:

Spaceflight.
Went from nothing to the A4 in Oct 1942, first rocket in space, thereafter it took first mammal (monkey) up in 1949. Copied and developed by the USSR, first man in space in 1961. USA/German development saw first man on moon in 1969. Beat that!!!

Not quite.

First liquid fueled rocket - 1926.
First rocket capable of breaking the Karman Line (100 km) - 1942 the V2/A4
First rocket to put something into orbit - 1957 (first flew 1955) - the R7
First rocket capable of breaking free of earth's gravitational pull - 1959 - the R7 (again)

People over-emphasise the link between the A4/V2 and subsequent rockets and ignore the progress made in rocket technology made by other separate rocket teams in other countries - particularly in the US and USSR. Yes, both countries made the most of the German technology and knowledge when they were able to get their hands on it but a lot of the rocket development in the US and USSR developed independently of the German technology.

[sleepezy]

Panamax said:

Having just clicked on the link above I'm saddened to note reported closure in 2014 of the museum I mentioned above. I guess they must have been short of visitors, perched right out on the coast.

I think that's just the Centennial Pavilion - the museum is still showing as open - at least I hope it is as I am intending on visiting there in mid Jan while I have a spare weekend in NC whilst in the area for a business trip

[Fast and Spurious]

Eric Mc said:

Not quite.

First liquid fueled rocket - 1926.
First rocket capable of breaking the Karman Line (100 km) - 1942 the V2/A4
First rocket to put something into orbit - 1957 (first flew 1955) - the R7
First rocket capable of breaking free of earth's gravitational pull - 1959 - the R7 (again)

People over-emphasise the link between the A4/V2 and subsequent rockets and ignore the progress made in rocket technology made by other separate rocket teams in other countries - particularly in the US and USSR. Yes, both countries made the most of the German technology and knowledge when they were able to get their hands on it but a lot of the rocket development in the US and USSR developed independently of the German technology.

Not quite? I wasn't writing a full history :-)

But the USSR started with an A4, built a copy, then refined and improved the rocket engine over the years. It's clear that it was the basis of all their subsequent rocket engines.

https://youtu.be/Y-xyXDiC92s?si=Vyuo13HtOAyTnbAQ

[DaveTheRave87]

If you were born in 1895 and lived until you were 75 years old you would have been old enough to remember the 1st powered flight and lived to see the Moon landings.

Astonishing progress in a lifetime.

[Eric Mc]

Fast and Spurious said:

Not quite? I wasn't writing a full history :-)

But the USSR started with an A4, built a copy, then refined and improved the rocket engine over the years. It's clear that it was the basis of all their subsequent rocket engines.

https://youtu.be/Y-xyXDiC92s?si=Vyuo13HtOAyTnbAQ

You do realise that the Soviets had been running rocket research since the 1920s - as had the Americans.

It really winds me up that people seem to think that the Germans deserve all the credit in this area. It's just plain wrong and smacks to me of a form of fetishness for "Super Nazi Technology". The REAL history of rocket research is absolutely fascinating - much of it largely unknown because of the obsession with Von Braun and his team. Of course, he, and other Germans, were important but the American and Russian technologists did an awful lot of fundamental work on all manner of rocket technology too, which was instrumental in both of them developing space programmes in the 1950s.

The Russians AND the Americans started WAY before they ever got their hands on A4s. Read up on the history of the Russian GIRD organisation as well asRobert Goddard, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California and the the work of Naval Officer Robert Truax both for the US Navy and later the US Air Force.

[Fast and Spurious]

Eric Mc said:

You do realise that the Soviets had been running rocket research since the 1920s - as had the Americans.

It really winds me up that people seem to think that the Germans deserve all the credit in this area. It's just plain wrong and smacks to me of a form of fetishness for "Super Nazi Technology". The REAL history of rocket research is absolutely fascinating - much of it largely unknown because of the obsession with Von Braun and his team. Of course, he, and other Germans, were important but the American and Russian technologists did an awful lot of fundamental work on all manner of rocket technology too, which was instrumental in both of them developing space programmes in the 1950s.

The Russians AND the Americans started WAY before they ever got their hands on A4s. Read up on the history of the Russian GIRD organisation as well asRobert Goddard, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California and the the work of Naval Officer Robert Truax both for the US Navy and later the US Air Force.

I was just summarising actual milestones Eric I.e first rocket into space, first mammal, first man on moon.. One could do the same with regards to earlier research and attempts before the Wright Brother's flight, there was a lot :-)

[Panamax]

There's a massive difference between building a rudimentary rocket motor vs building a stable rocket engine and sending the rocket on controlled flight.

Werhner von Braun and his team very notably managed to resolve,
Large liquid-fuel rocket engines,
Supersonic aerodynamics,
Gyroscopic guidance, and
Vectored thrust by means of rudders.[

[Eric Mc]

Panamax said:

There's a massive difference between building a rudimentary rocket motor vs building a stable rocket engine and sending the rocket on controlled flight.

Werhner von Braun and his team very notably managed to resolve,
Large liquid-fuel rocket engines,
Supersonic aerodynamics,
Gyroscopic guidance, and
Vectored thrust by means of rudders.[

Yes - they did achieve certain technical breakthroughs. But other technicians eleswwhere worked out aspects required for successful rocket flight too. For example, the Americans were WAY ahead of the Germans when it came to gyroscopic stabilisation. The leading company in the world in this area was Sperry who had been building autopilots since the 1920s.

Another area the Americans were more advanced in was telemetry. Once a V2 took off, nobody at the launch site had a clue what it was doing or where it was REALLY going as there was no radio data coming down from the thing once it was on its way. The Americans had been developing radio telemetry since the 1930s, chiefly the NACA at Langley and later at Muroc/Edwards.

And rocket motors were not just developed for ballistic rockets. The Americans had a host of smaller rocket building specialists already providing fairly reliable liquid rockets by the mid 1940s - such as the Reaction Motors XLR-11 (project started in 1943) which was used in a host of rocket powered aircraft - most famously the Bell XS-1 and later fitted to the Douglas 558 Skystreak and the early rendition of the North American X-15.
The XLR-11 and its descendants owed virtually nothing to German technology.

You mentioned vectored thrust by vanes. This was a fairly crude way of steering a rocket and was very quickly abandoned in favour of engine bell gimballing. Apart from the V-2, the only subsequent rocket that used this technique was the V-2's direct descendant, the Redstone/Jupiter C.

I recently read a very good book about the hidden aspects of American rocket development that tells a story that has never properly been told. It's called "Escape from Earth - The Secret History of the Space Rocket". I would highly recommend it.




And there are very good Cold War reasons why the true story of American rocket development was not publicised. Essentially, many of the scientists and engineers who were behind America's own early rocket research were fairly left wing politically and some of them had even been members of the American Communist Party, especially in the 1930s. From 1945 onwards, the Americans were actually more scared of US based Communists than they were of captured Nazis, so they were happier to admit they were using Nazi ingenuity than home grown "Commie" ingenuity. It's a fascinating story. Also, some of the American technicians were leading what we would now call "alternative" lifestyles. In some ways, they were prototype "hippies".

[Eric Mc]

Actually, that reminds me, 17 December is also an anniversary for two other famous flights.

On 17 December 1935, the Douglas DC-3 made its first flight.

And on 17 December 1953, Scott Crossfield became the first man to exceed Mach 2. He was flying another Douglas product, the Douglas 558 Skyrocket, powered by one of those XLR-11 rocket motors I mentioned earlier.

[pete]

Eric Mc said:

Until 1948, it was actually displayed at The Science Museum London. The Wrights had a long standing battle with The Smithsonian (the Smithsonian had backed their rival, Samuel Langley). However, after World War 2, and after the remaining Wright brother, Orville, had died, the Flyer was given to The Smithsonian.

It's one of the reasons why later, in 1970, NASA donated the Apollo 10 Command Module to The Science Museum where it remains on display to this day.

Brilliant, I didn't know that! I've seen the de Havilland-built replica in London, but just spent a few enjoyable minutes Googling this topic and found Orville Wright's explanation of why he favoured London over the Smithsonian, and lots of B&W photos of the original in situ in the Science Museum.