2 ms·

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 w

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
    I actually have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering. I'm quite comfortable with the definition of powered, controlled flight. It's not arbitrary. The thing is, nobody else even came close to the Wright's achievement for years afterwards. No amount of cooking the definition of controlled, powered flight is going to fix that for a pretender.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      You continue to miss the point entirely. This isn't about aeronautical engineering. It's not about your definitions. It's not about your degree. It's not about what came afterwards. This is about semantic definition, and how definitions of thresholds are arbitrary to a large degree, and why it's valid to differ. Your refusal to acknowledge that another point of view might have its own validity says a lot. But the world is a larger place than just your perspective. And that's something that has consequences far beyond anything to do with who invented the first airplane.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        The consequences are that all modern aircraft can trace their lineage back to the Wright Flyer, not to any of the other contenders.
        crazygringo 2y ago
        The definition of being first, and the definition of what modern versions are derived from, are two totally different things. The latter has no bearing whatsoever on the former. It's very interesting in its own right, but it's completely different.
lupusreal 2y ago
[flagged]
lupusreal 2y ago
[flagged]

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
  I actually have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering. I'm quite comfortable with the definition of powered, controlled flight. It's not arbitrary. The thing is, nobody else even came close to the Wright's achievement for years afterwards. No amount of cooking the definition of controlled, powered flight is going to fix that for a pretender.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    You continue to miss the point entirely. This isn't about aeronautical engineering. It's not about your definitions. It's not about your degree. It's not about what came afterwards. This is about semantic definition, and how definitions of thresholds are arbitrary to a large degree, and why it's valid to differ. Your refusal to acknowledge that another point of view might have its own validity says a lot. But the world is a larger place than just your perspective. And that's something that has consequences far beyond anything to do with who invented the first airplane.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      The consequences are that all modern aircraft can trace their lineage back to the Wright Flyer, not to any of the other contenders.
      - crazygringo 2y ago
        The definition of being first, and the definition of what modern versions are derived from, are two totally different things. The latter has no bearing whatsoever on the former. It's very interesting in its own right, but it's completely different.

lupusreal 2y ago

[flagged]

lupusreal 2y ago

[flagged]