Did Brazilian flier beat Wright brothers?

[Lavie Enrose]

The Globe And Mail
By_PAUL KNOX
Saturday, December 13, 2003 - Page A3 (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031213/BRAZIL13//?query=Santos+Dumont)

Did Brazilian flier beat Wright brothers?

U.S. hoopla over Kitty Hawk centennial neglects to mention Santos Dumont's feat

The year was 1906, and a Brazilian-born aviator and boulevardier named Alberto Santos Dumont was about to make history. What kind of history, as far as millions of Brazilians are concerned, is still in dispute.

[Zep]

Santos-Dumont would not have made it into the air without help from Lawrence Hargraves (http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/hargrave.html).

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by Zep
Santos-Dumont would not have made it into the air without help from Lawrence Hargraves (http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/hargrave.html).

What a fasinating read! Thanks for the information, Zep!

[Ove]

The magazine subscribe to: Aeroplane (http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com/) has just had a series of articles investigating claims form, Santos Dumont, Samuel Langley and a number of others where people afterwards have claimed they flew before the Wright Brothers.

It is interestingly allways other people that makes the claim. The Dumont's , Langleys etc never made that claim themselves.

It is just not so. The first people that demonstrated powered controlled flight was the Wright Brothers 100 years ago. The others just missed a little bit of something. Most of them, and that certainly included Santos-Dumont neded coltrol surfaces. Santos first got a working aeroplane AFTER he had seen the Wright Brothers demonstrate flying and saw control surfaces (tailplane, rudder and ailerons).

Langley simply lacked power, his engine was far to weak and far to heavy.

The one person that really inspired the Wright Brothers was the German glider Otto Lillienthal and they frankly admitted owing him a lot.

I fail to see why Americans will take the credit away from one of their countrymen but hey, some people don't believe in the moon landing either.:p

[Luciana]

Originally posted by Zep
Santos-Dumont would not have made it into the air without help from Lawrence Hargraves (http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/hargrave.html).

The French (who thought that France was the cradle of aviation) freely acknowledged Hargrave's influence: Alberto Santos-Dumont was the first European to fly a heavier-than-air machine constructed of Hargrave box kites in 1906.

Hmmm... at least this is wrong, as Santos-Dumont (hyphenated) is undeniably Brazilian. Santos-Dumont's glory lies in the fact that he made a public demonstration in Paris to hundreds of people in 1906, while the Wright brothers only did so at 1908.

From Lavie's link: He didn't even make the list of 100 aviation heroes named yesterday by the organizers of the Wright brothers' centennial.

Now that's unexcusable. It almost casts doubts on how sure everybody is about Wright's pioneer accomplishments. :p I don't know much about it, but if I recall correctly, Santos-Dumont's airplane flew by its own means, why the Wright brother's still needed a catapult or go downhill, at least until 1906.

Santos-Dumont was far too rich and too idealistic to care about perfecting his engine. He had more than 100 inventions, and yet he never bothered to have a patent on anything. Once he flew to an awed audience, he lost much of the interest. He never meant to make any money out of it.

I think it all boils down to the fact that the scientific accomplishments of the time made it possible for many inventors to simultaneously start a race on who invented before.

[shanek]

If this happened in 1906, he didn't beat the Wright Brothers, who achieved their first flight in 1903.

"There isn't a single piece of evidence to show they flew in 1903,"

Well, except for the witness accounts and the film of it happening... :rolleyes:

[ZeeGerman]

There is also the case of Gustav Weisskopf (http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/Pages/research.html) to be considered. Some people think he really beat the Wrights others beleive he was simply a con man.

Zee

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Did Brazilian flier beat Wright brothers?

Beat them? Is there any evidence that the Brazilian even met them? And how could it happen? There were two Wright brothers! Did he beat them one at a time? Or was he one tough Brazilian?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
I don't know much about it, but if I recall correctly, Santos-Dumont's airplane flew by its own means, why the Wright brother's still needed a catapult or go downhill, at least until 1906.The Reuters article on this from last week says that that's not true about the Wrights' airplane, although it is a myth widely believed in Brazil.

The article also says "By the time Santos-Dumont got around to his maiden flight the Wright brothers had already flown numerous times, including one in which they flew 24 miles in 40 minutes." So even if the first 1903 flight were disqualified, the Wrights would still take the title.

[Crossbow]

Just to echo what Shanek said, the Wrights did their work in 1903, whereas this other guy did his work in 1906.

Therefore, the Wrights did it first.

[Patricio Elicer]

Also, there's a huge difference between the "first flight" and the "first powered controlled flight". In the latter category, the Wright brothers were indeed the first.

[Luciana]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
The article also says "By the time Santos-Dumont got around to his maiden flight the Wright brothers had already flown numerous times, including one in which they flew 24 miles in 40 minutes." So even if the first 1903 flight were disqualified, the Wrights would still take the title.

The issue is not so black and white as that, there's hardly a consensus. At the time of Santos-Dumont's flight, he was recognized by the international press as the first man to fly. Even in the US the press acknowleged that SD's feat was an important demonstration of what flying really was. The Wright's brothers accomplishments were only recognized later.

Wait a minute, I'm spending all of my knowlege of airplanes here, and the truth is that I don't care that much. :D

Ove: I'm not sure Santos-Dumont was acquainted with the Wright's brother's work. Weren't they kept a secret for years? Unless I'm mistaken, they started to exchange corrrespondence only many years later.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
The issue is not so black and white as that, there's hardly a consensus. At the time of Santos-Dumont's flight, he was recognized by the international press as the first man to fly. Even in the US the press acknowleged that SD's feat was an important demonstration of what flying really was. The Wright's brothers accomplishments were only recognized later.

Because they did most of their work in secret. They did have witnesses and documentary films, but they weren't released for quite some time.

[The Fool]

The Russians beat you all!!!!http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/mozhaisky.html

I'm amazed Huzzington has not tolk you about this already......

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by The Fool
The Russians beat you all!!!!http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/mozhaisky.html

I'm amazed Huzzington has not tolk you about this already......

Of course, don't some of the wackier afro-centrists claim that Egyptians were flying thousands of years ago? I seem to have seen on of those loonies on TV a few years ago...

[The Fool]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


Of course, don't some of the wackier afro-centrists claim that Egyptians were flying thousands of years ago? I seem to have seen on of those loonies on TV a few years ago...

Australians were routinely flying passenger services between state capitals by the mid 1800s. Of course, this fact has been supressed by evil people.

[Ove]

The Russians beat you all!!!!http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/mozhaisky.html

The same series of articles i mentioned in my first post also dealt with Mozhaisky and came to the same conclusion. He just did not have the nescessary power to get airborne.
The issue is not so black and white as that, there's hardly a consensus. At the time of Santos-Dumont's flight, he was recognized by the international press as the first man to fly.
Sorry but that's just not true.
Ove: I'm not sure Santos-Dumont was acquainted with the Wright's brother's work. Weren't they kept a secret for years? Unless I'm mistaken, they started to exchange corrrespondence only many years later.
No he knew full well what they was doing and their work was not kept secret. Nobody in the American goverment really cared what they did and certainly didn't care enough to clamp a secrets act on their work.
Now that's unexcusable. It almost casts doubts on how sure everybody is about Wright's pioneer accomplishments. I don't know much about it, but if I recall correctly, Santos-Dumont's airplane flew by its own means, why the Wright brother's still needed a catapult or go downhill, at least until 1906.

That is one of the common myth's about the Wright Brothers. The 1903 "Flyer" did NOT use a catapult, it started from a monorail, the reason for this was the same as the reason why they on their later models started using catapults: getting rid of the weight of the undercarriage but the catapult they used was not that powerfull.

Today when you say catapult most people think of a carrier steam operated thing that hurls the plane in the air, the catapults the Wright Brothers user was not nearly that powerfull, they gave a small contribution to the take off speed yes but mainly they served as a undercarriage during take off. The plane then landed on skids.

Sorry Luciana, Santos Dumont WAS a pioneer and he made a great contribution to aviation but he was not the first man to demonstrate powered controlled flight. That happened precisely 100 years ago, at Kitty Hawk.

[Luciana]

LucianaThe issue is not so black and white as that, there's hardly a consensus. At the time of Santos-Dumont's flight, he was recognized by the international press as the first man to fly.

Ove: Sorry but that's just not true.


Luciana: From this link: http://100aviators.netfirms.com/contro.html

1906, November 12 -- Alberto Santos-Dumont, Brazil: Santos-Dumont was already a world-famous pilot of dirigibles when he flew his 14-bis more than 220 meters. His celebrity made the news of his flight easy to swallow, and the international press declared him the first man to fly. Even the New York Herald, which had already published stories about the Wrights, declared Santos-Dumont's the "first important demonstration" of flight. The pusher biplane canard (elevator & rudder in front) never made more than a short hop after that, but Santos-Dumont developed a successful tractor monoplane three years later. Most of Latin America still recognizes Santos-Dumont as the inventor of the airplane.

And from this one: http://www.flight100.org/history/dumont.htmlAs far as the world knew, it was the first airplane flight ever and Santos-Dumont became a hero to the world press. The stories about the Wright brothers' flights at Kitty Hawk and later near Dayton, Ohio, were not believed even in the US at the time.

Ove: No he knew full well what they was doing and their work was not kept secret. Nobody in the American goverment really cared what they did and certainly didn't care enough to clamp a secrets act on their work.

Luciana: I'm confused. First of all, who mentioned the American government? Second, I found another link (I'm getting good at this, I'm learning more about flying than I could ever expect. You are right regarding the use of the catapult, it's a gross misconception, at cnn: t was only later that the secretive Orville and Wilbur Wright proved they had beaten Santos-Dumont at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, three years earlier on December 17.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/12/10/brazil.santosdumont.reut/

Ove: Sorry Luciana, Santos Dumont WAS a pioneer and he made a great contribution to aviation but he was not the first man to demonstrate powered controlled flight. That happened precisely 100 years ago, at Kitty Hawk.

Luciana: You don't have to apologize, as I never claimed anything. Actually, I couldn't care less, and I know very little of the subject anyway. :p

[hgc]

OK, tomorrow's the big day (100th anniversary), so it's best we get this whole question laid to rest right now and once and for all.

First powered flight:

http://www.thaitechnics.com/fly/tg4/wright.jpg

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
OK, tomorrow's the big day

Yeah—Return of the King premiers!!! :D

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


Of course, don't some of the wackier afro-centrists claim that Egyptians were flying thousands of years ago? I seem to have seen on of those loonies on TV a few years ago...

I believe an entry to Samual Pepys (late 17th century) diary describes a flying machine happily and easily travelling between areas of London.

Needless to say, most scholars are not impressed with that particular recollection.

[Ove]

Rrrrrright, let's celebrate this anniversary with a summary and a timeline:

1898: Alberto Santos Dumont a wealthy Brazillian businessman living in Paris starts out promoting the rigid airship and builds some.

1902: Santos Dumont visits America invited by the organizers of the St. Louis Fair (to see the preeparations, the fair was in 1904). Here he met Samuel Langley and discussed aviation. Langley was very aware of the Wright brothers work and undoubtedly they discussed that.

1903: French born civil engineer Octave Chanute holds lectures at Aero-Club de france and describes the gliders that Wilbur and Orville Wright had experimented with in 1901-02-03. Illustrated accounts of this lecture was published in La Locomotion and L'Aérophile (two magazines that Dumont certainly read).

1903: In August and again inNovember, Chanute writes two articles that prompts another businessman Ernest Archdeacon to embark on a vigorus campaign to encourage french pioneers to catch up with the Wright Brothers. Eventually he sets up a price.

1904: Early - News of the Wright Brothers flight reaches France and is recieved with some disbelief but sets up a stir in the aviation world.

1904: Summer - Santos Dumont visits USA and meets with Chanute. It would be hard to believe that the Wright brothers flight was not discussed.

1905: October - News reaches France about the Wright Brothers flight lasting more than half an hour. - Santos Dumont begins to turn his attention from Airships to heavier than air flight.

1906: L'Aérophile publish the details of the Wright Brothers patent, describing the vital tree-axis control system but the french virtually ignored it but it makes Santos Dumont apply for the Archdeacon prize

1906: 21 and 22. August, Santos Dumont's "14bis" makes some brief "hops" but is clearly underpowered. He fits a larger engine and between 4. and 7. September he makes "hops" at 13-23 feet. Archdeacon believes that it is enough to qualify for the first powered flight in Europe. On October he managed a "hop" of 60m (197 feet). Up until now his plane had only been controllable in two axes but now he fitted ailerons and on November the 12. he managed to fly 220m (722ft) in 21.2 sec and won the prize fair and square. - This is one year after the Wright Brothers had made flights lasting more than 30 MINUTES

Much of this is from an article written by British aeronautic historian Phillip Jarret and was brought in "Aeroplane Monthly" (a BRITISH magazine) in the November 2003 issue as part of a series investigating claims that other flyers had pre-dated the Wright Brothers.

Interestingly enough one of my countrymen Jakob Ellehammer also flew an aeroplane at roughly the same time as Santos Dumont, this site (http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/ellehammer.html) actually claims that he was the first to fly in Europe but that credit goes to Santos Dumont.;)

Let us all today join in a tree fold cheer for the first 100 years of aviation.
:usa:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[xouper]

Ove: 1906: L'Aérophile publish the details of the Wright Brothers patent, describing the vital tree-axis control system but the french virtually ignored it ...Slightly off topic, but I would like to comment on the importance of having control surfaces for all three axes. They are not necessarily required for maneuvering an airplane.

For example, I can fly a single engine Cessna without any ailerons. In fact, my first airplane, a Quicksilver, had no ailerons at all (and no wing warping either), just a rudder and elevator, and it was easily maneuverable about all three axes.

As an extreme example, a DC-10 can be maneuvered from cruise altitude all the way down to final approach and landing without any rudder, elevator, or ailerons, although not quite as effectively. Another example, the modern B-2 bomber has no rudder or tailplane whatsoever.

I guess my point is that although ailerons are the preferred choice for controlling the roll axis, control surfaces for each of the three axes are not mandatory for successful flight.

[Jon_in_london]

In fact, the English were flying to work every day until the great fire burned all the 'planes in 1666.

This fact has been suppresed by the evil EU and France in particular.

[Ove]

Slightly off topic, but I would like to comment on the importance of having control surfaces for all three axes. They are not necessarily required for maneuvering an airplane.

That is until you hits some turbulence, then you crash without ailerons. BUT todays aeroplanes are much more stable than the ones used back then, the Wright flyers was renown for their instability. They decided they needed ailerons after studying the Death of Otto Lillienthal. He had none but relied on weight shift, like a hang glider today. The Wright's quickly sicovered that this system was inadequate for powered flight.

In fact, my first airplane, a Quicksilver, had no ailerons at all (and no wing warping either), just a rudder and elevator, and it was easily maneuverable about all three axes.
I find that very hard to believe, any link?
As an extreme example, a DC-10 can be maneuvered from cruise altitude all the way down to final approach and landing without any rudder, elevator, or ailerons, although not quite as effectively.

Yes we saw that dramatically demonstrated. Unfortunately he COULD have used some at the landing where the plane cartwheeled. Fortunately a lot of the passengers survived thanks to an incredible pilot.

I guess my point is that although ailerons are the preferred choice for controlling the roll axis, control surfaces for each of the three axes are not mandatory for successful flight.

Correct, theoretically spoken but they are awfully handy in the real world.;)

[xouper]

Ove: That is until you hits some turbulence, then you crash without ailerons.Depends on how much turbulance. Too much, such as flying a Cessna in the wake of 767, and even ailerons won't help. It's true that a Cessna with ailerons can handle more turbulance than without using the ailerons, but the point still remains that it can be flown around the traffic pattern without ailerons, or to another airport. I know this because I've done it.

They decided they needed ailerons after studying the Death of Otto Lillienthal. He had none but relied on weight shift, like a hang glider today. The Wright's quickly sicovered that this system was inadequate for powered flight.Inadequate for the unstable design they were using, yes. However, powered aircraft are availbe today that use weight shift for control. It is indeed "adequate" for certain kinds of powered flight.

xouper: In fact, my first airplane, a Quicksilver, had no ailerons at all (and no wing warping either), just a rudder and elevator, and it was easily maneuverable about all three axes.

Ove: I find that very hard to believe, any link?No link, sorry. I am reporting my first hand experience as a pilot and aircraft owner. If you choose not to take my word for it, I can live with that. :)

[fsol]

So close, but yet so far. Percy Pilchers 1899 flying machine. Would it have really worked? Who can say.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/story/0,1371,1096892,00.html

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by xouper
Slightly off topic, but I would like to comment on the importance of having control surfaces for all three axes. They are not necessarily required for maneuvering an airplane.

For example, I can fly a single engine Cessna without any ailerons. In fact, my first airplane, a Quicksilver, had no ailerons at all (and no wing warping either), just a rudder and elevator, and it was easily maneuverable about all three axes.

As an extreme example, a DC-10 can be maneuvered from cruise altitude all the way down to final approach and landing without any rudder, elevator, or ailerons, although not quite as effectively. Another example, the modern B-2 bomber has no rudder or tailplane whatsoever.

I guess my point is that although ailerons are the preferred choice for controlling the roll axis, control surfaces for each of the three axes are not mandatory for successful flight.

...continuing the slight hijack... ;)

During my return to the field after my successful first check ride for my private pilot license, Ms Velta Benn (my FAA check pilot)...and almost famous old lady of aviation...she made the world's second ever carrier landing by a female during her stint as a WASP in WWII....

Anyway, I digress....the highly competent and exceptionally entertaining Ms. Benn flew the aircraft back to the airport, and landed it herself using only the trim wheel and the doors of our cessna as control surfaces.

God bless her, but that was about the most creative bit of flying I ever saw. :)

-z

[xouper]

rikzilla: ....the highly competent and exceptionally entertaining Ms. Benn flew the aircraft back to the airport, and landed it herself using only the trim wheel and the doors of our cessna as control surfaces.That's why the Wright patent was so valuable in the beginning, because aircraft doors hadn't been invented yet. :D

[sackett]

Hiram Maxim "flew" in 1894:

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi210.htm

He used control surfaces, although not as competently as the Wrights. The startling thing is the scale on which he worked: 100 feet of wingspan, propellors in excess of 12 feet across (the biggest until the B-29), a 900-lb steam (!) powerplant, and a crew of four, not including the ship's dog.

It's been remarked that Maxim seems to have been afraid to fly. His plane ran on a railroad track, using honest-to-pete rail car wheels. Outrigger wheels running under a restraining track kept the machine from taking off -- until one of them failed and Hiram and crew started flying for real.

If you find a copy of his book, "Aritifical and Natural Flight," give it a read, and then put it in a safe, because it's a rare volume.

[Ove]

.Depends on how much turbulance. Too much, such as flying a Cessna in the wake of 767, and even ailerons won't help. It's true that a Cessna with ailerons can handle more turbulance than without using the ailerons, but the point still remains that it can be flown around the traffic pattern without ailerons, or to another airport. I know this because I've done it.

I don't doubt you, i know full well it can be done but then again, todays planes are much more stable than the "kites" of yesterday, even a "spamcan";) .

No link, sorry. I am reporting my first hand experience as a pilot and aircraft owner. If you choose not to take my word for it, I can live with that.

No no no, i'm just executing my old "grumpy sceptic" routine. Off course i believe you.:)

Inadequate for the unstable design they were using, yes. However, powered aircraft are availbe today that use weight shift for control. It is indeed "adequate" for certain kinds of powered flight.

Yes, lots of powered hanggliders do this today but then again, we DO know a lot more about aerodynamics today than the Wright Brothers did.;)
So close, but yet so far. Percy Pilchers 1899 flying machine. Would it have really worked? Who can say.

I read about that and even saw some pictures of the flight (the newly buildt replica). IMHO no, he would not have flown. Glided yes but he had the same problem that stopped a lot of the older aviators: Lack of power. They used a couple of Chainsaw engines on the replica and states that they had 6 hp, compared to the original's 4 hp. Yes but ..... how about the weight? A chainsaw engine is a marvel of compact light weight alloy precision engineering which gives an unique power to weight ratio, the 1899 enginebuilders was in no way able to make anything like that