3 ms·

If you postfacto cherry pick the criteria by which to credit the inventor of a plane then yes, the wright brother unequivocally invented the plane.

WalterBright 2y ago
It's not hard to pick out the factors that enabled their success. Multiple breakthroughs were needed. What is hard is to find convincing proof that anyone beat them to it.
- amrocha 2y ago
  The Wrights were successful and influential, yes. But they were not the first. Unless you cherry pick criteria to disqualify everyone else. Which is what you’re doing.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    The amount of documentation provided by the Wrights makes denial of their claim to being the first tauntamout to Moon landing denialism. Even several years later and with the benifit of knowing of the Wright's innovations, Santos-Dumont was barely able to get off the ground for a few hundred meters while the Wrights were flying tens of kilometers.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      But that's the point -- it's all about the definition of what constitutes the first airplane, which is kind of arbitrary. If you get off the ground for a few hundred meters, why isn't that enough to be first? Why does it need to be tens of kilometers? Are you establishing a 1km distance minimum? Based on what? I'm not taking any position either way. But the idea that it's "Moon landing denialism" is ludicrous. It's not about whether the Wright brothers flew. It's about how you draw the definition of "flying" as opposed to e.g. an "assisted jump", which is non-obvious.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        The Wrights' achievement is powered, controlled flight.
        crazygringo 2y ago
        You're helping my point. Define powered. Powered enough to take off from a flat surface without wind? Could the Flyer III do that? Or are you allowed to have wind behind you? If so, how much? Surely not 50 knots? Where's the line? Define controlled. Look at how much Flyer I and Flyer II crashed. Are they controlled? How controlled is controlled? Where's the line? I'm not saying who invented the plane. I'm saying reasonable people will come up with different reasonable definitions. Different totally justifiable lines. And it's not "denialism" to appreciate that reality.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        See this article: https://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Santos_Dumont/Santos_Dumont.htm https://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_... It covers your points, except it doesn't mention 3-axis control that the Wrights had in their first Flyer, and the Europeans did not have until the Wrights demonstrated flying in circles. Yes, the Flyer III could and did take off and fly without wind or catapult. Controlled means 3 axis control. The Flyer had all the critical elements of an airplane in place.
        crazygringo 2y ago
        You seem to be misunderstanding again. You are arbitrarily defining these things. Based on what? And why is your definition more valid than someone else's? And per your own link, the earlier Flyers did not take off without wind: > They also ignore the records of the flights the Wrights made in 1904 and 1905, which show that the catapult wasn't always used. If the Wrights felt they had sufficient headwinds, they took off without it. It's not clear from the article when the first time was that it took off without catapult or wind. It seems to suggest 1908? But the larger point is that you're taking the definition of flight for granted as whatever you've defined it to be. You don't seem to be acknowledging that other people can validly disagree, and that that's OK.

WalterBright 2y ago

It's not hard to pick out the factors that enabled their success. Multiple breakthroughs were needed. What is hard is to find convincing proof that anyone beat them to it.

amrocha 2y ago
The Wrights were successful and influential, yes. But they were not the first. Unless you cherry pick criteria to disqualify everyone else. Which is what you’re doing.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  The amount of documentation provided by the Wrights makes denial of their claim to being the first tauntamout to Moon landing denialism. Even several years later and with the benifit of knowing of the Wright's innovations, Santos-Dumont was barely able to get off the ground for a few hundred meters while the Wrights were flying tens of kilometers.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    But that's the point -- it's all about the definition of what constitutes the first airplane, which is kind of arbitrary. If you get off the ground for a few hundred meters, why isn't that enough to be first? Why does it need to be tens of kilometers? Are you establishing a 1km distance minimum? Based on what? I'm not taking any position either way. But the idea that it's "Moon landing denialism" is ludicrous. It's not about whether the Wright brothers flew. It's about how you draw the definition of "flying" as opposed to e.g. an "assisted jump", which is non-obvious.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      The Wrights' achievement is powered, controlled flight.
      - crazygringo 2y ago
        You're helping my point. Define powered. Powered enough to take off from a flat surface without wind? Could the Flyer III do that? Or are you allowed to have wind behind you? If so, how much? Surely not 50 knots? Where's the line? Define controlled. Look at how much Flyer I and Flyer II crashed. Are they controlled? How controlled is controlled? Where's the line? I'm not saying who invented the plane. I'm saying reasonable people will come up with different reasonable definitions. Different totally justifiable lines. And it's not "denialism" to appreciate that reality.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        See this article: https://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Santos_Dumont/Santos_Dumont.htm https://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_... It covers your points, except it doesn't mention 3-axis control that the Wrights had in their first Flyer, and the Europeans did not have until the Wrights demonstrated flying in circles. Yes, the Flyer III could and did take off and fly without wind or catapult. Controlled means 3 axis control. The Flyer had all the critical elements of an airplane in place.
        crazygringo 2y ago
        You seem to be misunderstanding again. You are arbitrarily defining these things. Based on what? And why is your definition more valid than someone else's? And per your own link, the earlier Flyers did not take off without wind: > They also ignore the records of the flights the Wrights made in 1904 and 1905, which show that the catapult wasn't always used. If the Wrights felt they had sufficient headwinds, they took off without it. It's not clear from the article when the first time was that it took off without catapult or wind. It seems to suggest 1908? But the larger point is that you're taking the definition of flight for granted as whatever you've defined it to be. You don't seem to be acknowledging that other people can validly disagree, and that that's OK.