7 ms·

Wind tunnels and a scientific approach to aviation were already in use in Europe at the time. In fact you can see all of the steps you list in the work of the e

Wind tunnels and a scientific approach to aviation were already in use in Europe at the time. In fact you can see all of the steps you list in the work of the early British pioneers e.g. Sir George Cayley. "About 100 years ago, an Englishman, Sir George Cayley, carried the science of flight to a point which it had never reached before and which it scarcely reached again during the last century." — Wilbur Wright, 1909.

WalterBright 3y ago
Except Cayley did not solve the problems of powered, controlled flight. If Cayley had, then Langley's Aerodrome would have flown. Curtis later attempted to prove that the Aerodrome could fly. He did this by adding a new wing, a working control system, and a much more powerful engine. I.e. he cheated.
- kybernetikos 3y ago
  I'm not trying to diminish the accomplishments of the Wrights, I'm just noting that applying the scientific method to flight had a significant history before the Wrights came on the scene. I felt that your earlier comment gave the impression that this was the unique key differentiator for the Wrights, but I don't think it was as simple as that.
  - kybernetikos 3y ago
    Sorry to reply to myself here, but I found this comment really interesting on the difference between 'tower jumpers' and 'arm whirlers': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36412847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36412847
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    None of the Wright's contemporaries used the scientific method to develop a working airplane. AFAIK, nobody else had done a directed research and development program to create controlled, powered airplane. I did not claim that the Wrights invented the scientific method. Whether Edison's research labs were true R+D programs is debatable. From my reading about them, Edison eschewed theory and did not understand what he was doing. He just tried things until he found something that worked. His efforts to develop the multiplex telegraph, while eventually successful, showed little understanding of electricity. The same with the light bulb - trying thousands of materials for the filament instead of trying to figure out why the filaments didn't last is going around the horn. Edison invented the vacuum tube by accident, and did not recognize what he had done, because he didn't understand what he was doing. That said, Edison certainly was a great inventor and deserves the credit for his inventions. But it was not the modern way of doing things - the Wrights get the credit for that.
    - kybernetikos 3y ago
      > None of the Wright's contemporaries used the scientific method to develop a working airplane. AFAIK, nobody else had done a directed research and development program to create controlled, powered airplane. There were certainly contemporaries of the Wrights attempting to use the scientific method to develop a working airplane. By the time of the Wright's success at the end of 1903, The Aeronautical Society of Great Britain was already 34 years old. They sponsored the first wind tunnel in 1870 designed by Francis Wenham, one of their members who had also given the inaugural lecture on flight, and the principle by which lift is generated by wings. This was very much a scientific society, with regular reports and lectures and its members were scientists or engineers, not crazy people strapping sheets of metal to their arms and jumping off towers. "The organization has never been a large one, and probably years will pass by before the importance of its twenty-nine years of work will be fully understood and appreciated. Even as the missal painters kept art alive during the Dark Ages, so has this band of men kept aeronautics alive during the years in which their branch of science has been by the many regarded almost as a pseudo-science." James Means, Aeronautical Annual Vol 1 (1895), a passage probably read by the Wright brothers, after receiving the journal from the Smithsonian. Percy Pilcher ('a pale serious fellow, with a great bent for invention, and a brain that was razor keen.') completed his powered triplane in 1899, based on his own research, correspondence with Lilienthal, his work with Hiram Maxim (who had legal battles with Edison over which of their companies invented the light bulb in the US) and correspondence with Octave Chanute (who advised the Wright brothers to choose the mid atlantic coast for their experiments and visited them) and his correspondence with Lawrence Hargrave. It is assumed that the triplane would likely have needed some modification to be practical but it was never tried, since he died in a glider accident before he got chance to try it. This is just one example of a person at the time who did extensive research, communicated with many of the other key figures of the time, and built lots of prototypes to test approaches. There were lots of others too. If your point is just that the Wrights succeeded first, then I agree, but to characterise all these characters as approaching the problem in an essentially stupid way is just not true, if anything, I'm struck by how much the early aviation pioneers seemed to be in touch with each other and understood some of the basic principles of aerofoil design and the science behind how lift works.

WalterBright 3y ago

Except Cayley did not solve the problems of powered, controlled flight. If Cayley had, then Langley's Aerodrome would have flown. Curtis later attempted to prove that the Aerodrome could fly. He did this by adding a new wing, a working control system, and a much more powerful engine. I.e. he cheated.

kybernetikos 3y ago
I'm not trying to diminish the accomplishments of the Wrights, I'm just noting that applying the scientific method to flight had a significant history before the Wrights came on the scene. I felt that your earlier comment gave the impression that this was the unique key differentiator for the Wrights, but I don't think it was as simple as that.
- kybernetikos 3y ago
  Sorry to reply to myself here, but I found this comment really interesting on the difference between 'tower jumpers' and 'arm whirlers': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36412847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36412847
- WalterBright 3y ago
  None of the Wright's contemporaries used the scientific method to develop a working airplane. AFAIK, nobody else had done a directed research and development program to create controlled, powered airplane. I did not claim that the Wrights invented the scientific method. Whether Edison's research labs were true R+D programs is debatable. From my reading about them, Edison eschewed theory and did not understand what he was doing. He just tried things until he found something that worked. His efforts to develop the multiplex telegraph, while eventually successful, showed little understanding of electricity. The same with the light bulb - trying thousands of materials for the filament instead of trying to figure out why the filaments didn't last is going around the horn. Edison invented the vacuum tube by accident, and did not recognize what he had done, because he didn't understand what he was doing. That said, Edison certainly was a great inventor and deserves the credit for his inventions. But it was not the modern way of doing things - the Wrights get the credit for that.
  - kybernetikos 3y ago
    > None of the Wright's contemporaries used the scientific method to develop a working airplane. AFAIK, nobody else had done a directed research and development program to create controlled, powered airplane. There were certainly contemporaries of the Wrights attempting to use the scientific method to develop a working airplane. By the time of the Wright's success at the end of 1903, The Aeronautical Society of Great Britain was already 34 years old. They sponsored the first wind tunnel in 1870 designed by Francis Wenham, one of their members who had also given the inaugural lecture on flight, and the principle by which lift is generated by wings. This was very much a scientific society, with regular reports and lectures and its members were scientists or engineers, not crazy people strapping sheets of metal to their arms and jumping off towers. "The organization has never been a large one, and probably years will pass by before the importance of its twenty-nine years of work will be fully understood and appreciated. Even as the missal painters kept art alive during the Dark Ages, so has this band of men kept aeronautics alive during the years in which their branch of science has been by the many regarded almost as a pseudo-science." James Means, Aeronautical Annual Vol 1 (1895), a passage probably read by the Wright brothers, after receiving the journal from the Smithsonian. Percy Pilcher ('a pale serious fellow, with a great bent for invention, and a brain that was razor keen.') completed his powered triplane in 1899, based on his own research, correspondence with Lilienthal, his work with Hiram Maxim (who had legal battles with Edison over which of their companies invented the light bulb in the US) and correspondence with Octave Chanute (who advised the Wright brothers to choose the mid atlantic coast for their experiments and visited them) and his correspondence with Lawrence Hargrave. It is assumed that the triplane would likely have needed some modification to be practical but it was never tried, since he died in a glider accident before he got chance to try it. This is just one example of a person at the time who did extensive research, communicated with many of the other key figures of the time, and built lots of prototypes to test approaches. There were lots of others too. If your point is just that the Wrights succeeded first, then I agree, but to characterise all these characters as approaching the problem in an essentially stupid way is just not true, if anything, I'm struck by how much the early aviation pioneers seemed to be in touch with each other and understood some of the basic principles of aerofoil design and the science behind how lift works.