3 ms·

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 th

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
    None of those other experimenters identified 3-axis control as a critical problem to be solved, none of them knew about adverse yaw, none of them built a series of prototypes aimed at solving each problem, and none of them built a controllable powered airplane. Keep in mind that the Wrights built a series of gliders, each one was to test a particular aspect of the flight problem. Pilcher's designs were not capable of flight: "Cranfield built a full-sized working replica of Pilcher's aircraft, but, based on wind tunnel tests with a scale model, they made several alterations to Pilcher's original designs, which they speculated Pilcher would have made, including filling in cut-away sections of the wings to increase the wing area, and therefore lift, and adding a swinging seat to aid control of the aircraft through shifting body weight; a refinement developed by Octave Chanute, which they believed Pilcher would have been aware of. They also added the Wright brothers' innovation of wing-warping as a safety backup for roll control. Pilcher's original design did not include aerodynamic controls such as ailerons or elevators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Pilcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Pilcher and he left no lasting contribution to aeronautical advancement. It is interesting, however, how many people assert that Wright's rivals designs would have / could have flown, and they set out to "prove" it by modifying those designs by incorporating the Wright innovations. Besides that, the fundamental reason these competitors could not get into the air is pretty simple. The Wrights had a propeller design that was double the efficiency of everyone elses' propellers. This means the Wrights doubled the effective engine power. Still, the Wrights could not find an existing engine with the needed power/weight ratio, and so they designed and built the very first lightweight aero engine. The Wrights also were the first to create an efficient wing cross section. It still required a much bigger wing than the Wrights originally anticipated. I.e. even tossing aside the lack of control the rival machines had, there is SIMPLY NO WAY they had the power/weight to get it off the ground. They didn't have the engine, the propeller, or the wing section. P.S. Even a brick shithouse will fly if you attach a powerful enough engine.
    - kybernetikos 3y ago
      I don't consider myself an expert on this topic, but from my reading, some of what you're saying is correct, and some of it is not. My disagreement is not at all about whether the Wrights had their own insights and strengths or can justly claim priority to have the first human carrying powered and controlled aircraft. I know it can seem like I'm doing them down in some way, but I do not intend to. So, I recognise their advances and their focus on building their vision of an actually useful flying machine. Where I disagree is when you say things like: > Keep in mind that the Wrights built a series of gliders, each one was to test a particular aspect of the flight problem. as if that were unusual. Almost all of the names I mentioned in my previous comment did exactly that too. We probably disagree on precisely which of the Wright's achievements meant a significant advance on state of the art (some of the advances you mention were being systematically investigated by others too), but my main point of departure from you is really just the apparent characterisation of the Wrights contemporaries as not following the scientific method and approaching the whole problem in a haphazard and isolated way. My own impression of those days is of a small group of pioneers that were in touch with each other, building on each others advances, and with incomplete but growing knowledge of the science behind what they were trying to do.

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
  None of those other experimenters identified 3-axis control as a critical problem to be solved, none of them knew about adverse yaw, none of them built a series of prototypes aimed at solving each problem, and none of them built a controllable powered airplane. Keep in mind that the Wrights built a series of gliders, each one was to test a particular aspect of the flight problem. Pilcher's designs were not capable of flight: "Cranfield built a full-sized working replica of Pilcher's aircraft, but, based on wind tunnel tests with a scale model, they made several alterations to Pilcher's original designs, which they speculated Pilcher would have made, including filling in cut-away sections of the wings to increase the wing area, and therefore lift, and adding a swinging seat to aid control of the aircraft through shifting body weight; a refinement developed by Octave Chanute, which they believed Pilcher would have been aware of. They also added the Wright brothers' innovation of wing-warping as a safety backup for roll control. Pilcher's original design did not include aerodynamic controls such as ailerons or elevators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Pilcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Pilcher and he left no lasting contribution to aeronautical advancement. It is interesting, however, how many people assert that Wright's rivals designs would have / could have flown, and they set out to "prove" it by modifying those designs by incorporating the Wright innovations. Besides that, the fundamental reason these competitors could not get into the air is pretty simple. The Wrights had a propeller design that was double the efficiency of everyone elses' propellers. This means the Wrights doubled the effective engine power. Still, the Wrights could not find an existing engine with the needed power/weight ratio, and so they designed and built the very first lightweight aero engine. The Wrights also were the first to create an efficient wing cross section. It still required a much bigger wing than the Wrights originally anticipated. I.e. even tossing aside the lack of control the rival machines had, there is SIMPLY NO WAY they had the power/weight to get it off the ground. They didn't have the engine, the propeller, or the wing section. P.S. Even a brick shithouse will fly if you attach a powerful enough engine.
  - kybernetikos 3y ago
    I don't consider myself an expert on this topic, but from my reading, some of what you're saying is correct, and some of it is not. My disagreement is not at all about whether the Wrights had their own insights and strengths or can justly claim priority to have the first human carrying powered and controlled aircraft. I know it can seem like I'm doing them down in some way, but I do not intend to. So, I recognise their advances and their focus on building their vision of an actually useful flying machine. Where I disagree is when you say things like: > Keep in mind that the Wrights built a series of gliders, each one was to test a particular aspect of the flight problem. as if that were unusual. Almost all of the names I mentioned in my previous comment did exactly that too. We probably disagree on precisely which of the Wright's achievements meant a significant advance on state of the art (some of the advances you mention were being systematically investigated by others too), but my main point of departure from you is really just the apparent characterisation of the Wrights contemporaries as not following the scientific method and approaching the whole problem in a haphazard and isolated way. My own impression of those days is of a small group of pioneers that were in touch with each other, building on each others advances, and with incomplete but growing knowledge of the science behind what they were trying to do.