One of the most controversial events in aviation history took place in Fairfield, Connecticut today in 1901, as inventor Gustave Whitehead is thought by many to have executed a half-mile-long flight in his Flying Machine No. 21 at a height of 50 feet off the ground — over two years before the Wright Brothers made their much more famous flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. A few days later, the Bridgeport Herald published an account of the experimental machine’s August 14th flight, complete with a line drawing of Whitehead’s motorized glider sailing above the ground.
Whitehead was a German-born mechanic with a lifelong passion for studying kites, gliders, and the physics of flight. As a teenager, he worked aboard a sailing ship before immigrating to the United States in 1893, where he found work for a New York toy company designing kites and model gliders. A few years later, he was hired as a mechanic for the Boston Aeronautical Society before moving to Bridgeport, Connecticut in 1899 in search of factory work. During the 1890s, Whitehead built a number of experimental aircraft, including an ornithopter (a helicopter that achieved lift by flapping its “wings” like a bird) and full-size gliders both with and without engines.
A photograph of Gustave Whitehead’s No. 21 flying machine. Whitehead is seated at right, holding his daughter Rose in his lap.
It was Whitehead’s “Number 21” flying machine that eventually earned him a place in the history books. The Number 21 featured large, bat-like wings and two engines — one to drive the propeller, and the other to power the machine’s wheels while on the ground. Despite several contemporary newspaper accounts detailing Whitehead’s August 14 flight and eyewitnesses later signing affidavits that attested to it, a number of modern-day flight historians dispute the claim that Whitehead made the first motorized flight in history, citing minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts and the lack of a photographs showing the Number 21 machine in flight. Whitehead advocates point out that the odds are stacked against any major institution’s acknowledging Whitehead’s milestone because of an agreement between the Smithsonian Institute and the Wright family estate, wherein the Smithsonian would obtain the original 1903 Wright Flyer in exchange for promising to exclusively credit the Wright Brothers with completing the first powered, controlled flight in history.
In 1964 and 1968, Connecticut Governor John Dempsey declared August 14th “Gustave Whitehead Day” in honor of the aviation pioneer. 45 years later, Governor Dannel Malloy added fuel to the fire by signing a bill declaring Gustave Whitehead the first person to achieve powered flight — a move that was quickly repudiated by the states of Ohio and North Carolina (both of which credit the Wright Brothers with the first powered flight). The controversy is still flying high today, over a century after Whitehead’s high-flying achievement.
Whitehead advocates point out that the odds are stacked against any major institution’s acknowledging Whitehead’s milestone because of an agreement between the Smithsonian Institute and the Wright family estate, wherein the Smithsonian would obtain the original 1903 Wright Flyer in exchange for promising to exclusively credit the Wright Brothers with completing the first powered, controlled flight in history.
That has always been something that bothered me. A place like the Smithsonian should be interested in historical accuracy and education above all else and when they're making deals like that I believe it puts a crack in the trust that I have for anything else they have to say.
Way too much to type out, but the Wright's have it in my opinion.
If you want to be surprised, read up on what year it was when the Smithsonian finally admitted that, because they had their bets on another guy altogether, who just so happened to be curator and have a huge federal grant.
That has always been something that bothered me. A place like the Smithsonian should be interested in historical accuracy and education above all else and when they're making deals like that I believe it puts a crack in the trust that I have for anything else they have to say.
This article has more about the Smithsonian taking sides in arguments over who built the first airplane. One of the Smithsonian people had personally tried to claim he had beat the Wright brothers to make the first craft. (Edited to add link to article.)
"This and later patent disputes muddied the historical waters of early aviation history. Ironically, one of the chief challengers to the first-in-flight claims of the Wright brothers was the Smithsonian. Samuel Langley, the secretary of the Smithsonian from 1887 to 1906, was a competitor of the Wright brothers who tried but failed to fly his craft, called the Aerodrome, in 1903. After Langley’s death in 1906, his successor at the head of the Smithsonian was Charles Walcott, a friend of Langley’s and a fierce champion of Langley’s legacy. In 1914, the Smithsonian teamed with Glenn Curtiss, an aviation pioneer who was fighting the Wrights’ patent claims, to rebuild the Aerodrome and prove it was capable of flight. Curtiss rebuilt the plane with new technologies, not available in 1903, and the Smithsonian dubbed it the first craft “capable” of flight."
Jacob Brodbeck flew before Whitehead was born, if one is to believe accounts.
Seriously, compared to Langley, Whitehead, many others, the Wrights showed a progression of development before and after their first flight. Their powered, controlled flight may or may not have been first, but theirs made it stick.
That has always been something that bothered me. A place like the Smithsonian should be interested in historical accuracy and education above all else and when they're making deals like that I believe it puts a crack in the trust that I have for anything else they have to say.
This article has more about the Smithsonian taking sides in arguments over who built the first airplane. One of the Smithsonian people had personally tried to claim he had beat the Wright brothers to make the first craft.
"This and later patent disputes muddied the historical waters of early aviation history. Ironically, one of the chief challengers to the first-in-flight claims of the Wright brothers was the Smithsonian. Samuel Langley, the secretary of the Smithsonian from 1887 to 1906, was a competitor of the Wright brothers who tried but failed to fly his craft, called the Aerodrome, in 1903. After Langley’s death in 1906, his successor at the head of the Smithsonian was Charles Walcott, a friend of Langley’s and a fierce champion of Langley’s legacy. In 1914, the Smithsonian teamed with Glenn Curtiss, an aviation pioneer who was fighting the Wrights’ patent claims, to rebuild the Aerodrome and prove it was capable of flight. Curtiss rebuilt the plane with new technologies, not available in 1903, and the Smithsonian dubbed it the first craft “capable” of flight."
Bingo. Plus a lot lot more. Langley was a jerk. Curtiss was too. London had the Wright Flyer for years.
Whitehead advocates point out that the odds are stacked against any major institution’s acknowledging Whitehead’s milestone because of an agreement between the Smithsonian Institute and the Wright family estate, wherein the Smithsonian would obtain the original 1903 Wright Flyer in exchange for promising to exclusively credit the Wright Brothers with completing the first powered, controlled flight in history.
That has always been something that bothered me. A place like the Smithsonian should be interested in historical accuracy and education above all else and when they're making deals like that I believe it puts a crack in the trust that I have for anything else they have to say.
That agreement was actually about Samuel Langley - previous director of the Smithsonian - who was also a competing aviation pioneer. Until the late '40s the Smithsonian had been exhibiting Langley's unproven aircraft as the "first aircraft capable of powered flight". The actual Wright Flyer was in a museum in London. Charles Lindbergh leaned on the Smithsonian and brokered a deal with the London museum to give the Flyer to the Smithsonian, with the agreement that the Smithsonian would acknowledge the Wrights, and stop pushing Langley.
On the original topic, funny how there are plenty of photographs of Whitehead's aircraft on the ground, but not a single one of it actually flying, no matter how blurry.
Do you think the Wright brothers didn't know about Whitehead? One could argue Whitehead's flight lead to the Wrights' flight and so on.
It's possible, but IIRC, the Wrights were very good at documenting everything they did- not because of proof, but because of scientific/engineering methodology. Which is probably why they were able to progress the art better than anyone else.
Given all of the possible alternative first flights didn't seem to result in much other than a claim, it's hard to give them anything more than a pat on the back. The Wrights effort did result in future flying, a lot of it.
It's always interesting to me that history cares so much about the first.
I'm sure there have been plenty of other similarly or more significant advances in technology to go from 1850s flight to today, but yet the one we all happen to be fascinated with is "first".
It's sort of like taking your 4 year old to a playground and arguing with all the parents about who's kid walked at the youngest age, or said the first sentence, or was potty trained first.
I don't know why we do it, I just find it interesting.
Visited the Curtiss museum earlier this summer--it's not far from Watkins Glen--and learned that the Wright Bros. had more than enough jerkiness to keep up with Curtiss. Along with powered flight, the Wrights pioneered patent trolling; theirs, which was for lateral control, was so broad that they used lawsuits defending it to hinder aeronautical development for years.
The Wrights achieved lateral control in flight by wing warping (twisting the rear outer tips of the wings), but filed infringement lawsuits against anyone building planes with ANY kind of lateral control--including Glen Curtiss, who invented ailerons. It took him years and a small fortune to eventually win his right to use his design.
The Wright Brothers brought one thing to their first flight that no one else did: a newspaper photographer. Being first means nothing if you can't prove it, which led to Wilbur's now-famous quote: "pictures or it didn't happen."
So we remember the biggest A-holes of history because they make the biggest noise, but fail to properly appreciate those who had the biggest positive impacts because, well, they are decent people who don't need to make much noise. i.e. Edison vs Tesla, Wright vs these dudes, etc, etc.
Sounds about right. Ever celebrate Johannes Gutenberg day?
Visited the Curtiss museum earlier this summer--it's not far from Watkins Glen--and learned that the Wright Bros. had more than enough jerkiness to keep up with Curtiss. Along with powered flight, the Wrights pioneered patent trolling; theirs, which was for lateral control, was so broad that they used lawsuits defending it to hinder aeronautical development for years.
The Wrights achieved lateral control in flight by wing warping (twisting the rear outer tips of the wings), but filed infringement lawsuits against anyone building planes with ANY kind of lateral control--including Glen Curtiss, who invented ailerons. It took him years and a small fortune to eventually win his right to use his design.
So yeah, suck it, Kitty Hawk.
Margie
This isn't to defend the Wrights as a-holes- I'm sure they were, but that's because they totally saw the financial benefit to being the first to do it right. Edison didn't invent the light bulb, he invented the working one.
Anyway, take yourself back 115 years, and consider what the Wrights were claiming vs. what Curtis "invented"- other than the idea of adding a hinge, there's no practical difference between wing warping and ailerons- they both altered the shape of the wing so that it would change the lift characteristics, this tilting the plane one way or another. So, realistically, all Curtis did was improve on the Wright original design.
And, in that case, it's easy to make a case for the Wrights to be upset. And it should have been tough for Curtis to prove that adding the hinge is so unique to the design that he should have the rights to make it- it's NOT an original idea- it's just a different way to change the aerofoil shape to change the lift. And that's exactly what the Wrights patented- change the shape of the wing to change the lift- thus tilting the airplane. It's only when you look at wings as being fully rigid do we see that wing warping was an inferior idea.
Realistically, the smart one is the judge that saw that the patent should be just given away. THAT is when the airplane explosion happened. If the Wrights were really, financially, clever, they would have just made a deal to license the crap out of the idea for cheap. They would have made a fortune, and the rest of the industry would be making airplanes.
