Odd thoughts about the Wright Flier

Is that like you can prick your finger but don't....you know?

:-)

I usually get them from KFC or DQ.

John

Reply to
John Stein
Loading thread data ...

The Allison was designed for turbocharging, the integral blower was just the last stage, and there wasn't room in a P-40 for a proper turbocharger installation.

Fahey shows the following Army procurement totals:

P-38 9393 P-39 8914 P-40 11997 P-47 15678 P-51 14066

Reply to
Steven P. McNicoll

Not even Austrailian Funnel-Web spiders with bees shooting out of their mouths?

Reply to
default

No, he got the assembly line from the Singer sewing machine factory, IIRC. His invention, as indicated by David W, was applying it to automobile manufacturing.

Up until then, cars were assembled by teams of men, with the team members each providing a variety of functions (versus the production line where each person does only one thing).

Doug

Reply to
Doug Sams

I consider him more sad and pathetic because he cannot maintain a civil, meaningful thought through a thread. At least when I resort to namecalling it is to show how I feel about actual actions someone did (Bundick excample) or because they actually demonstrated how much of a oron they are in several posts (Dunakin example).

I do not resort to puling the trigger because the person is merely annoying or disagrees with me.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

"Doug Sams"

----------

At Simms, an educated consumer, is our best customer.

HDS

Reply to
HDS

Ditto!

Reply to
RayDunakin

Look in a mirror.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

John -

I'm go> > My source for this is Al Bowers, chief aero engineer at NASA Dryden

I didn't say "enthusiast." I said expert. Al has devoted his entire professional carreer to advancing the science of aviation at it's extreme leading edge. I can think of no one else on the planet better qualified to objectively evaluate the Wright's contribution.

I have no idea what you mean by that. Are you saying that you admit there's not catapult in the '03 design, but because ignorant textbook publishers say there is, you are accepting it because it fits your argument?

Finally we get to the nut of the thing. I just don't understand your definition of invention at all. Please give me some examples of what you consider invention. All invention and innovation from the beginning of time has depended on prior art. No one has ever invented anything that didn't rely on earlier technologies and discoveries.

Well, at least you've promoted them from "tinkerers" :-)

You keep making references to these "facts" but have yet to cite a single source. I'm cited my references, now it's up to you to support your argument.

Once again your definition of "true innovators" escapes me. Someone else brought up the Wright's propellor design so I'll use that as an example.

Before the Wrights, propellors were short and wide. They worked by basically paddling against the air and pushing it backwards. Due to their extensive wind tunnel research (yes, research) on airfoils they realized that a more effective propellor could be made by making it an airfoil that causes lift along its axis of rotation. This means that the propellor should be long and thin, like a wing. One of the properties of a good airfoil is that it generates lift with very little drag whereas the typical turn-of-the-century propellor had massive amounts of drag. They were, effectively, a wing in total stall. You don't get that sort of leap of insight by "tinkering." It requires a deep understanding of the fundamental principles involved. It allowed them to more than double the efficiency of propellors from under 40% to about 80%.

This has been fun, but it's time to give it a rest. Let's just agree to disagree.

- Jack

Jack Hagerty ARA Press

formatting link

Reply to
Jack Hagerty

To clarify, I believe everyone has the right to profit from their own hard work. But, just the act of working hard does not give one the right to make broad claims of invention. Standard practices based on recognizing prior art, and demonstrable burden of proof when challenged, are required of the inventor. The Wrights did neither of these, as many technical historians have understood from the historic record despite the popular notions.

Tinkering with other people's ideas is experimentation. Finding answers to technical questions is research. Combining the work of others is called integration. All of these are hard work and honorable ways to make a profit. But, the use of the term 'invention' requires a higher degree of proof, including reduction to practice, disclosure of the details, and willingness to accept challenges to your claims. Again, the Wrights abused all of these points.

The technical solutions and true inventions of powered human flight were shared by many. The contributions of the Wright Bros. weren't considered as viable solutions in their day, and none survived in practice for very long. We can fly today *despite* the technical, legal, and ethical practices of the Wright Bros. It is enlightening (at least to me!) to learn more about the real innovators.

On your other comment: history and sociology are intertwined. One can only be considered in the context of the other. The definition of what constitutes an "inventor" or an "invention", for example, is based on what has developed in our society. The fact that we are even discussing this and giving such importance to historical technical contributions is based on our view of what is important to society (then and now). Most Americans might find it more interesting to argue about their favorite beer or sport team or TV show. ;)

-John DeMar

Reply to
John DeMar

True, except in my case, the part "believed in for so long".

As I've said before, my current opinion is open to modification as I learn more, just as it has changed from my childhood textbook notion of the Wrights.

-John

Reply to
John DeMar

And there is so much they didn't do. I find it a disservice to many of the true innovators when the simple white-washed image is presented as the whole picture in the public's eye.

And I take exception to your attempt to discount my observation and opinions by associating them with a vulgar bodily function. ;)

Rutan discloses a great deal to the public in a timely manner. He makes no wider claims than what is technically obvious to the educated observer. He has the right (as the Wrights did) to conduct his work in secret as long as it stays his trade secret as engineered intellectual property. Once a patent is claimed, and challenges are made, the 'inventor' has obligations of public disclosure and burden of proof. This is where the comparison diverges. You can extrapolate my argument from there. :)

-John

Reply to
John DeMar

Sorry man but

via american heritage dictionary

A new device, method, or process developed from study and experimentation: the phonograph, an invention attributed to Thomas Edison.

seems to be a spitt> >

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

You were there? ;) BTW, I don't claim that at all. I said that others have used the latter catapulted flight photos as the "first flight". It is misleading.

-John

Reply to
John DeMar

No I'm not saying that. See other messages.

Oh I don't think so. Use that litmus test on the Orville's statements and then I'll listen. You'd be surprised to learn when he claimed, all the way to the edge of paranoia.

Provocative if not enlightening? ;)

-John

Reply to
John DeMar

Langley's team had unmanned and 'weighted' powered flight for reasonably long distances before they publcily tested with a human at the controls at the end of their gov. contract. This was before the Wright Bros. flights. At least the pilot lived (1903). When the Wrights did their first PUBLIC demo in the US in 1908 (for the Army), the passenger died and Orville broke several ribs.

Learn more, it won't be as funny.

It started in personal corresponsences with many of their contemporaries. And it continued as they had patent infringement warrants issued to others with better designs as they continued to refuse to show their aircraft publicly. The Smithsonian/Langley controversey is just one of the side shows.

-John

Reply to
John DeMar

Others had heavier-than-air flight before the Wrights and for longer distances, both manned and unmanned. Combine "powered" flight, with a human at the controls, and you get the Wrights claim at Kitty Hawk. If you consider a wind strong enough to pick up a glider as "powered". :)

Not true. Your loss.

-John

Reply to
John DeMar

They certainly had many technical accomplishments. But, they didn't invent the airplane. They also did not have the innovations that took aviation beyond their patent claims. This is not only my opinion, but the general accepted truth known by expert historians based on the full record.

Wow, I don't know what to say. I may be insignificant, but I'm about as far from a liberal as you can get! I suggest you re-read your paragraph after reading more in depth about your mythological heroes. Either way, I see no reason for a personal attack.

-John

Reply to
John DeMar

You said, "Contemporaries of the Wrights found it quite unethical (as scientists and engineers) to claim that a catapulted flight was truly a milestone in "powered" flight." The Wrights did not use a catapult before 1904, if you were at all familiar with their work you would have known that.

Reply to
Steven P. McNicoll

Alphonse Pénaud accomplished the same 25 years before Langley.

That's good advice, you should heed it yourself.

Reply to
Steven P. McNicoll

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.