Replies

All that guvmint money given to Langley for no result... and two bumpkins running a bicycle shop in Dayton, OH figure out the problem all on their own.

Don't kid yourself. The Wrights did benefit from Langley's work. For one thing, they learned what didn't work. As you can see from the description, the Langley machine was a decent glider, it glided almost as far as the Wright machine flew under power on that first flight. The Wrights were engineers, despite not having gone to engineering school. (Not all that uncommon in that day) If they couldn't figure something out from first principals, as a physicist would be wont to do, they experimented until they found what would work. The built wind tunnels to determine the best shape for their wings. They flew large "kites" to learn still more about what would work.

They also knew that weight was as important as power in the selection of their engine. They chose a very low speed prop, which could get by with a very light drive mechanism. But saying they did it "all on their own" is to misstate the history of the effort. They, like all pioneers in such areas, benefited from the previous work of others, and also from work in unrelated fields, gasoline engines, driven by automotive needs, in this case.

That is of course not to say they don't deserve lots of credit for perseverance and ingenuity, they do, boy do they.

Whatever the ridicule laid upon Langley, to its credit, the NYT was one of the first national journals to recognize the Wright bros.' accomplishments.

Flight was no new thing in 1903. Balloons had taken man to the air since the 18th Century. President George Washington oversaw a balloon flight in Philadelphia. Balloons were used extensively in the Civil War. Come 1900, that new technology, the internal combustion engine was being applied to the old lighter-than-air technology, and balloons were no longer dependent upon the winds.

Meanwhile, German and French aviators were conducting successful expiriments with manned gliders and powered models. The principles of lift were well understood (Eiffel used his famed tower as an observation tower for wings which he tested off the top of his tower), and the technology of motors was advancing rapidly, thanks to the automobile. The success of the Wright brothers came of their synthesis of all the existing technologies plus thier incomparable ability to adapt.

They expected the world to recognize their achievement immediately. Their telegram home upon the success of the Dec. 17 flight included instructions to tell the press. It was done. And the story was carried nationally, but without much notice. The problem was, as seen in this article by the NY Times, the people -- not the press -- weren't ready for it.

It took another six years before Americans came to recognize the Wrights' great accomplishment. Meanwhile, their fame was won in Europe. What was up?

Here's the problem. The Wrights were adapting a technology that was un-PC, motors, to flight. Balloons were fine, so long as they floated. Give them a dose of gasoline, and there was hell to pay. Motors, you see, were the worst sort of abusers of the working man and a toy of the rich. Anything that used them was wrong, including airplanes. The first major introduction of the Wright brothers to America was conducted by the Automobile Club of America, a group of millionaire automobile enthusiasts. The association condemned the Wrights to the political associations with automobiles, which under Theodore Roosevelt, was anathema. T.R. kept a sign on his house saying, "no automobiles." The Wrights were nothing but flying automobilists and thereby undeserving of national attention.

So please excuse the NY Times it's cynicism of Langley's expiriments. The journal actually came around faster than others as to the Wrights' great deeds.