Following the lead of General Electric, which conducted the first jet engine test in the US in its Lynn, Massachusetts plant on April 18, 1942 (the same date as the Doolittle Raid). Just saying . . . :-)
Thank you for correctly identifying Kill Devil Hills as the site of the Wirght Brothers first flights. It is rare that anyone outside North Carolina gets that right.
But it is widely known that the Wirghts were not the first to take a heavier than air craft into the air. Four or five people had done it, there is no doubt. The issue is whether they controlled the craft and landed it. If anyone had a controlled flight before the Wight's wing warping system, they should have publicized it at the time. .
But it is widely known that the Wirghts were not the first to take a heavier than air craft into the air. Four or five people had done it, there is no doubt. The issue is whether they controlled the craft and landed it. If anyone had a controlled flight before the Wight's wing warping system, they should have publicized it at the time. .
4
Kristin Hussey's work is to be commended. For nearly a year the proponents of the Whitehead myth have claimed that Jane's "All the World's Aircraft" has officially recognized Gustave Whitehead as the "first to fly." Now we find that this is not true. Congratulations, Ms. Hussey, you have completely undermined the basis of the Whitehead fraudsters' recent success with Connecticut legislators who have embarrassed their great state. Jane's has realized it has been had and is now attempting a graceful retreat. Calm heads should accept Jane's clarification and allow Connecticut legislators time to come to their senses and distance themselves from the Wright deniers whose nonsense has been vigorously opposed by all legitimate aeronautical historians.
3
There seem others who are claimed be first a plane, including English, French, and Germans. See this site: http://mentalfloss.com/article/16814/who-flew-wright-brothers
Also, O'Mallory in Brooklyn claimed he was abducted by a propelled alien space and took the controls in 1851. Ethel Smertz had huge stomach problems in 1892 and left the ground. No one thinks WASPS likes the Wrights were first, Nubian pharoahs in one of those really long dynasties flew over the Blue Nile which also discovered it, but back then it was black. A chinese flew over the South China in Sea in a propelled junk in 1491 and discovered all oil deposits there. Mongolians did not trek over the Bering 10,000 years ago and come to the new world first, a propelled air machine attached to a Giant Sloth arrived in Brooklyn 50,000 years ago and populated by Disney characters.
Also, O'Mallory in Brooklyn claimed he was abducted by a propelled alien space and took the controls in 1851. Ethel Smertz had huge stomach problems in 1892 and left the ground. No one thinks WASPS likes the Wrights were first, Nubian pharoahs in one of those really long dynasties flew over the Blue Nile which also discovered it, but back then it was black. A chinese flew over the South China in Sea in a propelled junk in 1491 and discovered all oil deposits there. Mongolians did not trek over the Bering 10,000 years ago and come to the new world first, a propelled air machine attached to a Giant Sloth arrived in Brooklyn 50,000 years ago and populated by Disney characters.
2
I believe that there was flight in Europe before the Wrights.
Weiskopf (his German name) is honored in his hometown of Leutershausen, Bavaria, Germany with a museum and a beautiful sculpture in the center of town.
1
"Jane's All the World's Aircraft" is not a publication about early aviation history. It is one of the world's most prestigious annuals documenting contemporary aviation. Their integrity is impeccable. I submit that they don't want to be involved with the current debate because of the abusive nature of the Wright supporters. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the opinion or research of any of their editors or employees.
The advent of the internet has raised even more compelling questions than whether Gustave Whitehead flew before the Wrights. The issue to some historians is now whether the Wrights actually flew on December 17, 1903; whether they were able to control their plane until 1905; and whether the plane hanging at the Smithsonian is the genuine original Wright Flyer I.
A typical label slapped on those who raise such questions, even with documentation, is "conspiracy theorist" or worse. Is it any wonder that Jane's wouldn't want to be involved in such an uncivilized debate ?
Marcia Truthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com
The advent of the internet has raised even more compelling questions than whether Gustave Whitehead flew before the Wrights. The issue to some historians is now whether the Wrights actually flew on December 17, 1903; whether they were able to control their plane until 1905; and whether the plane hanging at the Smithsonian is the genuine original Wright Flyer I.
A typical label slapped on those who raise such questions, even with documentation, is "conspiracy theorist" or worse. Is it any wonder that Jane's wouldn't want to be involved in such an uncivilized debate ?
Marcia Truthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com
1
Marcia, nice attempt to spin the disaster that has befallen Whitehead advocates, but it is an attempt doomed to failure, just as the claims made by and for Gustave Whitehead have failed, for 80 years, to convince aviation historians who take their history seriously.
What you, and others, touted as "Jane's All The World's Aircraft" recognition of the Whitehead (Myth) claims, has been revealed to be the opinion of one person and one person only at Jane's, the editor.
IHS - which owns and publishes Jane's - clearly wants little or nothing to do with the Whitehead story or their editor's personal opinion of that story.
Whitehead advocates also touted a blurry photo as "proof" Whitehead flew, using an elaborate (and completely faked) "forensic photo analysis" - and we know where that went... into the dustbin, after that photo was revealed to be of a Montgomery glider on display in 1905, not Whitehead flying in 1901.
So, you've now lost two of what you and others took to be the most important recent developments supporting Whitehead's claims. Are you now willing to admit that this flurry of Whitehead support over the past two years has been little more than a fantasy ?
Finally, have you apologized to Jane's editor for posting his essay on your blog site without his permission ?
Carroll F. Gray http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/index.html
What you, and others, touted as "Jane's All The World's Aircraft" recognition of the Whitehead (Myth) claims, has been revealed to be the opinion of one person and one person only at Jane's, the editor.
IHS - which owns and publishes Jane's - clearly wants little or nothing to do with the Whitehead story or their editor's personal opinion of that story.
Whitehead advocates also touted a blurry photo as "proof" Whitehead flew, using an elaborate (and completely faked) "forensic photo analysis" - and we know where that went... into the dustbin, after that photo was revealed to be of a Montgomery glider on display in 1905, not Whitehead flying in 1901.
So, you've now lost two of what you and others took to be the most important recent developments supporting Whitehead's claims. Are you now willing to admit that this flurry of Whitehead support over the past two years has been little more than a fantasy ?
Finally, have you apologized to Jane's editor for posting his essay on your blog site without his permission ?
Carroll F. Gray http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/index.html
2
Mr. Gray, I don't care to get into a debate with you personally, thank you, for the reasons I have just posted. There are many new developments about the Whitehead flights. You and other Wright advocates are not keeping up and need to keep checking on the Whitehead websites. Some developments might not even be posted yet.
I will repeat. "Jane's" is not a historical publication. "Jane's'" has always backed the integrity and research of its editors. Your attempts to attack "Jane's," its editor, and other Whitehead researchers are not addressing the issues. You admit that you and other Wright advocates have no photo of the so called "first flight" of the Wrights. The photo you claim is bogus. You have no witnesses who will state that the Wrights took off with engine power alone from level ground. Let's level the playing field.
I don't need to apologize to "Jane's" editor for posting his essay on my blog site, because I had his permission; and it was an excellent, compelling essay I think everyone should read. I do need to apologize to the editor of "Jane's" for the unwarranted attacks it brought him and the publication he works for from you and other Wright advocates. Marcia truthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com
glennhcurtiss.blogspot.com
I will repeat. "Jane's" is not a historical publication. "Jane's'" has always backed the integrity and research of its editors. Your attempts to attack "Jane's," its editor, and other Whitehead researchers are not addressing the issues. You admit that you and other Wright advocates have no photo of the so called "first flight" of the Wrights. The photo you claim is bogus. You have no witnesses who will state that the Wrights took off with engine power alone from level ground. Let's level the playing field.
I don't need to apologize to "Jane's" editor for posting his essay on my blog site, because I had his permission; and it was an excellent, compelling essay I think everyone should read. I do need to apologize to the editor of "Jane's" for the unwarranted attacks it brought him and the publication he works for from you and other Wright advocates. Marcia truthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com
glennhcurtiss.blogspot.com
3
The latest attempts from Whitehead advocates to "level the playing field" by undermining the validity of the Wrights' first flight photo have been thoroughly discredited. The arguments they present, including those relating to Wright witnesses, simply do not hold up under scrutiny. Further, the attempt itself smacks of desperation, as it is yet another effort on the part of Whitehead supporters to invalidate competitive claims, showing that the case for Whitehead simply cannot stand on its own merit.
3
The alleged Whitehead flights are supported solely by uncorroborated hearsay. The 1901 article reporting an eyewitness account of Whitehead’s alleged flight is of dubious authorship and in conflict with Whitehead’s refusal to give the location of the test to the press, as he did not want a crowd or a "snap-shot verdict of failure". All other known reports are unverified reprints of the initial story, many of which say only that the machine was "said to have flown".
Whitehead never performed an announced, public flight and all of his subsequent powered machines were known failures. Investors abandoned him, sued him and in at least one instance, challenged him in the press to prove that he could fly "even the smallest distance with his machine" (this at around the same time Whitehead was claimed to have flown seven miles over Long Island Sound). He left behind no drawings or scientific data to show that he understood vital aerodynamic principles, but interviews suggest that his grasp of the topic was relatively weak. He had a poor reputation with regard to credibility and over the years gave numerous lofty, and invariably empty, promises to the press, as well as statements that contradict his own claims. There are no photos of his powered machines in flight and several of his “in-flight” glider photos are known fakes. Witness statements were recorded decades later by pro-Whitehead interviewers and contain contradictions and claims that cannot be substantiated.
Whitehead never performed an announced, public flight and all of his subsequent powered machines were known failures. Investors abandoned him, sued him and in at least one instance, challenged him in the press to prove that he could fly "even the smallest distance with his machine" (this at around the same time Whitehead was claimed to have flown seven miles over Long Island Sound). He left behind no drawings or scientific data to show that he understood vital aerodynamic principles, but interviews suggest that his grasp of the topic was relatively weak. He had a poor reputation with regard to credibility and over the years gave numerous lofty, and invariably empty, promises to the press, as well as statements that contradict his own claims. There are no photos of his powered machines in flight and several of his “in-flight” glider photos are known fakes. Witness statements were recorded decades later by pro-Whitehead interviewers and contain contradictions and claims that cannot be substantiated.
7
Why do state legislatures get involved in such tendentious matters when the value of pi, is it 3 or more than 3, is still unsettled?
5
There is no debate as to whether pi is over three, Stan. That it begins with 3.1415926 has been established for centuries.
What pi IS is a TRANSCENDENTAL NUMBER, meaning that it has never been determined how many numerals are to the right if the decimal point, or whether that sequence of numbers is even finite -- a figure almost as large as the number of legislators who will jump on a bandwagon to promote their state, even at the expense of the truth, which they may not know, or even care to learn.
What pi IS is a TRANSCENDENTAL NUMBER, meaning that it has never been determined how many numerals are to the right if the decimal point, or whether that sequence of numbers is even finite -- a figure almost as large as the number of legislators who will jump on a bandwagon to promote their state, even at the expense of the truth, which they may not know, or even care to learn.
2
In 1960 in my school newspaper class, we were taught the Five W's. Who, What, When, Where, and Why.
As so often with modern "journalism," the "Why," is MIA. WHY do the people of Bridgeport believe Mr. Whitehead was first?
In the meantime, I have it on good family history that my great-great grandfather flew a plane for a quarter mile, it being powered by twisted up bicycle tires like fat rubber bands. We can't offer any evidence, but it's true.
As so often with modern "journalism," the "Why," is MIA. WHY do the people of Bridgeport believe Mr. Whitehead was first?
In the meantime, I have it on good family history that my great-great grandfather flew a plane for a quarter mile, it being powered by twisted up bicycle tires like fat rubber bands. We can't offer any evidence, but it's true.
1
Yes, you are quite right to ask that question. They believe Gustave Whitehead flew first because it was widely known that he did and people are still there who are descended from eyewitnesses, of which there were at least many hundreds, likely more like a thousand at times. The factories and schools would empty out to watch his flights over the neighborhood and down the streets. This is real and it happened numerous times in 1901-1903.
2
It might have been nice if the author described some of the actual evidence as to whether Whitehead was first or not. Not one mention of that, no information on why the editor of Jane's believes Whitehead was first. How can you write an article like this and not include any of that information?
15
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The Wrights advanced aviation and Whitehead did not, despite his two year claimed lead. History is full of cases like these. Who invented the telephone, who invented radio, not who you think, according to many. It's not so important who was first but, rather, who developed and deployed new technology most effectively.
12
I went to elementary school in the 1950s in Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, in Virginia. The history that was taught us was very different in each location. I only believe the Wright brothers were the first, because that's what I was taught. I have never heard of this Connecticut fellow, nor have seen the photographs of any of it – except the one in this article. Now years later I find that the "History Channel" has changed so much of what I " thought" was true. The study of history and archaeology has proven and disproven myriad "facts" over the course of my lifetime. Think how much will be revealed in the next couple hundred years as technology makes it easier to verify anything. This debacle over who flew first is not a quest for truth. It is a quest for power and $$$$. D'oh---- what else is new?
7
Why would Connecticut want to hijack an identity from Ohio and North Carolina when it has a past so rich in notable American accomplishments?
Connecticut can claim to be first with two of the most ignominious aspects of American history. Connecticut was first in genocidal massacre of American Indians with the Mystic Massacre in 1637. (Egad! In a blue state?)
AND more commonly known and certainly no less noteworthy, Connecticut is the state first in national Betrayal as the birthplace (1741) of General Benedict Arnold. (Didn't they have a US Senator keep the tradition alive by leaving the Democratic Party?)
These are two truly noteworthy moments in American history that Connecticutians might not want to emblazon their license plates with. (Although "First in Betrayal has a ring to it.)
But it would at least be a little more honorable to own up to some of your state's truly substantial contributions to American heritage instead of hijacking identities from other states.
Connecticut can claim to be first with two of the most ignominious aspects of American history. Connecticut was first in genocidal massacre of American Indians with the Mystic Massacre in 1637. (Egad! In a blue state?)
AND more commonly known and certainly no less noteworthy, Connecticut is the state first in national Betrayal as the birthplace (1741) of General Benedict Arnold. (Didn't they have a US Senator keep the tradition alive by leaving the Democratic Party?)
These are two truly noteworthy moments in American history that Connecticutians might not want to emblazon their license plates with. (Although "First in Betrayal has a ring to it.)
But it would at least be a little more honorable to own up to some of your state's truly substantial contributions to American heritage instead of hijacking identities from other states.
6
Gustave Whitehead flew numerous times in CT in 1901-1903. It is a fact very important to world history. CT is not going to ignore this and hasn't, for the past hundred years, but the Wrights had a major marketing machine (still in place) which generates $$$$ for the states of OH and NC, etc. Back in the day, the marketing of the Wrights helped their patent lawsuits, they needed to be "first in powered flight" to be awarded pioneer patent rights, which were far broader than "furthering the art" if they weren't first. So they hired someone to help them accomplish this (William Hammer) and bring their rigged proof into court. They wanted to control and profit from world aviation. If you flew or built airplanes you would pay them, that was the plan. Gustave Whitehead, who'd been flying in 1901-1903, was left in the dust. His legacy should not be. To learn how all of the above was accomplished go to the FAQ on www.gustavewhitehead.info and see how Smithsonian accomplished this with the Wright heirs, how Whitehead detractors helped shape that contract which now controls early aviation history in the USA. CT is standing up for what they know occurred. Period.
...and of course CT does know about the Mystic Massacre and Benedict Arnold... Why not stand up for what everyone knows and agrees occurred?
And you know, you could celebrate the invention of the WWF. That is one of CT's great gifts to American culture.
And you know, you could celebrate the invention of the WWF. That is one of CT's great gifts to American culture.
Do you assert that CT has no intention of profiting from their declaration that Whitehead was first in flight? If so, perhaps you would like to explain the following statement from First Selectman Michael Tetreau:
"We have formed a Gustave Whitehead Committee chaired by Andy Kosch to meet the challenge of planning a way for our town to honor the accomplishments of Gustave Whitehead here in Fairfield. I have asked that the Committee also work with Bridgeport and Stratford to integrate our efforts into an initiative called the Whitehead Trail to boost tourism and economic development throughout the region."
Whitehead was "left in the dust" because he failed to ever verify his claims of flight. He further contributed nothing to the science of flight despite investor capital that provided him with the opportunity to do so. Instead, he produced numerous failed machines with Beach, Linde and finally Burridge, who sued him over a failed helicopter in 1912 and won, bankrupting Whitehead. These repeated failures and have been dismissed over and over by Whitehead supporters with a bevy of excuses, yet they serve as proof that Whitehead did not have the knowledge to produce a successful powered flying machine.
Despite all of this, I do believe that he is entitled to respect and admiration for believing in the possibility of aerial navigation at a time when it was considered foolishness.
"We have formed a Gustave Whitehead Committee chaired by Andy Kosch to meet the challenge of planning a way for our town to honor the accomplishments of Gustave Whitehead here in Fairfield. I have asked that the Committee also work with Bridgeport and Stratford to integrate our efforts into an initiative called the Whitehead Trail to boost tourism and economic development throughout the region."
Whitehead was "left in the dust" because he failed to ever verify his claims of flight. He further contributed nothing to the science of flight despite investor capital that provided him with the opportunity to do so. Instead, he produced numerous failed machines with Beach, Linde and finally Burridge, who sued him over a failed helicopter in 1912 and won, bankrupting Whitehead. These repeated failures and have been dismissed over and over by Whitehead supporters with a bevy of excuses, yet they serve as proof that Whitehead did not have the knowledge to produce a successful powered flying machine.
Despite all of this, I do believe that he is entitled to respect and admiration for believing in the possibility of aerial navigation at a time when it was considered foolishness.
2
What the state representatives think they are? Same with the US Congress. They are so megalomaniac that they believe they can legislate history and science, in addition to morality. They have tried and, in some states, have succeeded to legislate out the climate change, or sea level rising, or legislate in the Christian beliefs, disregarding science and historical facts altogether. Though the Republicans proclaim that they believe in limiting state power, they have extended states' hands into the realms that laws do not belong.
6
Since Smithsonian removed itself from being a credible source when it contracted with the Wright heirs, it was left to the state of CT to take action. When the federal gov't doesn't do what it should - in this case interpret history from a neutral standpoint, the states must then act.
2
Would you say that CT, where Whitehead lived and where his alleged flight took place, is interpreting history from a neutral standpoint? Further, who are the states to tell people what history is to be believed?
3
Susan, or any other Whitehead advocates,
Would you care to attempt to answer one lingering question - (one which Whitehead advocates have never dealt with) - why in his obituary of 1927 is there no reference to Whitehead making flights ?
Doesn't it seem reasonable that there would have been something said about this man who supposedly made remarkable flights in 1901 and 1902 ?
Why would the Bridgeport newspapers have overlooked this when composing his obituary ?
There is but one answer... in 1927 all concerned knew he had never flown in 1901 or 1902.
Carroll F. Gray http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/index.html
Would you care to attempt to answer one lingering question - (one which Whitehead advocates have never dealt with) - why in his obituary of 1927 is there no reference to Whitehead making flights ?
Doesn't it seem reasonable that there would have been something said about this man who supposedly made remarkable flights in 1901 and 1902 ?
Why would the Bridgeport newspapers have overlooked this when composing his obituary ?
There is but one answer... in 1927 all concerned knew he had never flown in 1901 or 1902.
Carroll F. Gray http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/index.html
2
Here's an option. Ohio was part of the Western Reserve of Connecticut in the 18th Century. So in a sense Ohio is part of what was Connecticut at one time.
1
Corrections to this article:
1. The heavier-than-air flying machine pictured is "No. 21", the photo taken in the spring of 1901. It was the first aeroplane, not a contraption. To watch a reproduction of it fly, go to http://gustavewhitehead.info/gustave-whitehead-resources/ and see Multimedia About Whitehead.
2. The Bridgeport Sunday Herald reported Whitehead flew 1/2 mile, on August 14, 1901; the Herald's sports editor was present for the flight.
3. Whitehead's claim is MORE documented.
4. Smithsonian's Contract with the Wright heirs was devised by Whitehead detractors Earl Findley and Maj. Lester Gardner. An article with documents from Smithsonian that proves this is at http://gustavewhitehead.info/smithsonian-conspiracy-to-deny-whitehead-fl....
5. Jane's published the statement, it represented the magazine's opinion. The owners have been hounded ever since to retract. But their original statement can be supported and should be. For shame, Jane's owners!
I have been involved with Whitehead research for fifty two years and have been present when witnesses were interviewed. They were honestly describing real flights. History should not be made by contract by the Smithsonian, in order to obtain and keep the Wright Flyer for $1, because that is the deal that was made in 1948. At that time, Gustave Whitehead was cheated out of his rightful legacy. I am working on a book about Whitehead, which should be published in 2015.
1. The heavier-than-air flying machine pictured is "No. 21", the photo taken in the spring of 1901. It was the first aeroplane, not a contraption. To watch a reproduction of it fly, go to http://gustavewhitehead.info/gustave-whitehead-resources/ and see Multimedia About Whitehead.
2. The Bridgeport Sunday Herald reported Whitehead flew 1/2 mile, on August 14, 1901; the Herald's sports editor was present for the flight.
3. Whitehead's claim is MORE documented.
4. Smithsonian's Contract with the Wright heirs was devised by Whitehead detractors Earl Findley and Maj. Lester Gardner. An article with documents from Smithsonian that proves this is at http://gustavewhitehead.info/smithsonian-conspiracy-to-deny-whitehead-fl....
5. Jane's published the statement, it represented the magazine's opinion. The owners have been hounded ever since to retract. But their original statement can be supported and should be. For shame, Jane's owners!
I have been involved with Whitehead research for fifty two years and have been present when witnesses were interviewed. They were honestly describing real flights. History should not be made by contract by the Smithsonian, in order to obtain and keep the Wright Flyer for $1, because that is the deal that was made in 1948. At that time, Gustave Whitehead was cheated out of his rightful legacy. I am working on a book about Whitehead, which should be published in 2015.
5
I believe there was a considerable prize available for proving powered flight in 1902 (It expired at the end of that year, so the Wright brothers did not obtain it due to their flight in 1903), but one has to question as it was a well known incentive for aviation in 1902, Why didn't Whitehead claim the prize? Why, if he did fly, couldn't he gain financial support for his design? The answers to those questions are why Whitehead will continue to, at best, be an asterisk in the "First in powered flight" question.
Many of us will not doubt the honest intent of people describing Whitehead's flights. That is different than saying he flew. Designing, building, and flying a powered aircraft in controlled flight requires model incorporating three requirements for controlled powered flight.
Lift - Wrights build one of the early wind tunnels and developed effective ways to measure lift and drag. This was built after the 1901 glider failed to perform as expected.
Power - Wrights knew the power needed and were able to build their own engine. They also invented the modern airplane propeller.
Control -The Wrights invented, tested, and patented 3-axis control.
So the Wrights had demonstrated the capacity to fly befor 12/17/1903, and they documented this capacity as well as documenting their flights. I haven't seen any direct documentation in this article.
Finely, if you are basing claims for Whitehead on peoples' statement you might consider a claim for the first practical airplane. That currently is considered the Wright 1905 flyer.
Lift - Wrights build one of the early wind tunnels and developed effective ways to measure lift and drag. This was built after the 1901 glider failed to perform as expected.
Power - Wrights knew the power needed and were able to build their own engine. They also invented the modern airplane propeller.
Control -The Wrights invented, tested, and patented 3-axis control.
So the Wrights had demonstrated the capacity to fly befor 12/17/1903, and they documented this capacity as well as documenting their flights. I haven't seen any direct documentation in this article.
Finely, if you are basing claims for Whitehead on peoples' statement you might consider a claim for the first practical airplane. That currently is considered the Wright 1905 flyer.
1
As mentioned in my previous comment, the author of the Herald article is not verified and its report cannot be substantiated. The Whitehead claim is documented only in the form of uncorroborated hearsay.
Reproductions of Whitehead's No. 21 were modified from what was known about the original (including modern engines and props) and were built without the vital details that are required to create a truly accurate reproduction.
The Wright family's agreement with the Smithsonian was a direct result of the Langley / Curtiss affair and the Smithsonian’s subsequent, and erroneous, labeling of the Langley machine being the first capable of flight. The agreement was created almost five decades after Whitehead's alleged flight, and no solid evidence supporting the claim was known to have been produced or published during that considerable period of time.
All evidence indicates that Octave Chanute, who had his finger on the pulse of aeronautical research of the time and subscribed to a clipping service, gave the Whitehead claims no credence and still believed that manned, controlled, sustained, powered flight had yet to be achieved after 1901, and 1902. It also appears that Whitehead never accepted Linde's public challenge to prove that he could fly, and that neither he, nor the alleged witnesses, came forward to prove his claim following the Wrights' 1903 success.
Your battle is not with the Smithsonian - it is with the total lack of solid evidence for Whitehead’s flights.
Reproductions of Whitehead's No. 21 were modified from what was known about the original (including modern engines and props) and were built without the vital details that are required to create a truly accurate reproduction.
The Wright family's agreement with the Smithsonian was a direct result of the Langley / Curtiss affair and the Smithsonian’s subsequent, and erroneous, labeling of the Langley machine being the first capable of flight. The agreement was created almost five decades after Whitehead's alleged flight, and no solid evidence supporting the claim was known to have been produced or published during that considerable period of time.
All evidence indicates that Octave Chanute, who had his finger on the pulse of aeronautical research of the time and subscribed to a clipping service, gave the Whitehead claims no credence and still believed that manned, controlled, sustained, powered flight had yet to be achieved after 1901, and 1902. It also appears that Whitehead never accepted Linde's public challenge to prove that he could fly, and that neither he, nor the alleged witnesses, came forward to prove his claim following the Wrights' 1903 success.
Your battle is not with the Smithsonian - it is with the total lack of solid evidence for Whitehead’s flights.
1
The Montgolfier brothers in France were the first in flight, June 4, 1783, by flying a hot air balloon in Annonay; they reached an elevation of approximately 3000 feet. This is the very first non-tethered flight, for which they were honored by Louis the 16th.
4
Finally! Someone is speaking THE TRUTH about who flew first! The US does not the whole Universe rule.
This article is extremely disappointing and does not meet the journalistic standards of the New York Times. There is no dispute among experts on early aviation history who spend their lives researching the facts. The Wrights were the first to achieve sustained heavier-than-air manned powered flight, and there is no hard evidence that Whitehead or anyone else did it earlier. Tom Crouch is not constrained by a contract signed by Orville Wright; he is one of the world's leading experts in early aviation history. Explaining to someone why Whitehead was not the first to fly is as frustrating as arguing with deniers of evolution or global warming. For all of them, I have the same answer - talk to people who spend their lives studying the subject matter and who therefore actually know something.
6
I am an educator who spent MY entire life studying Gustave Whitehead. He did fly first. Mr. Crouch, native of Dayton, OH, graduate of Wright State U., hand-picked to defend the Smithsonian-Wright contract of 1948, is disqualified from evaluating Gustave Whitehead. He makes a small fortune off deifying the Wrights in his books, too. Too many conflicts of interest. Don't always trust the "authorities", sir, as they may let you down, as in this case, they most assuredly have.
2
Susan, I only mention Crouch because he is named in the article. He is only one of many researchers who could be cited. The supporting evidence for the Wright's achievements are comprehensive and indisputable. There is no such body of evidence behind the claims for Whitehead.
As many have said in various comments on this supposed controversy, the burden of proof is on the supporters of Whitehead to show a consistent body of facts, credible contemporaneous reports by eyewitnesses, and clear photographs. Nothing of the sort has been provided.
I'm not just a random percon commeting on this matter. I led the commemoration of the centennial of New England's first flight, which took place on the frozen surface of Chebacco Lake, Hamilton, Massachusetts, on February 28, 1910, and I founded a museum celebrating New England's first flying field, at Plum Island, Massachusetts. There is extensive documentation of both of these events, unlike the spurious claims of flights in Bridgeport, Connecticut, in 1901. I have received zero profit by these ventures.
As many have said in various comments on this supposed controversy, the burden of proof is on the supporters of Whitehead to show a consistent body of facts, credible contemporaneous reports by eyewitnesses, and clear photographs. Nothing of the sort has been provided.
I'm not just a random percon commeting on this matter. I led the commemoration of the centennial of New England's first flight, which took place on the frozen surface of Chebacco Lake, Hamilton, Massachusetts, on February 28, 1910, and I founded a museum celebrating New England's first flying field, at Plum Island, Massachusetts. There is extensive documentation of both of these events, unlike the spurious claims of flights in Bridgeport, Connecticut, in 1901. I have received zero profit by these ventures.
1
Susan, be careful casting stones at someone as esteemed as Tom Crouch, don't you have a book supposedly to be published this year, about the Whitehead claims ? Aren't you seeking to profit from the work of your father, Maj. O'Dwyer and others ? Don't you see the hypocrisy in you leveling such accusations as you just have made ?
Carroll F. Gray http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/index.html
Carroll F. Gray http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/index.html
1
The March 2013 personal opinion of Paul Jackson, editor of "Jane's All The World's Aircraft" that Gustave Whitehead was first to fly has now been placed in its proper perspective by the owners and publishers of "Jane's All The World's Aircraft." Mr. Jackson's editorial, which sparked the current round of Whitehead Mania, “reflected Mr. Jackson’s opinion on the issue and not that of IHS Jane’s.” So now we can agree, all of us, regardless of our position on the matter, that it was Mr. Jackson, and only Mr. Jackson who was responsible for the Jane's editorial. I find it equally of importance that the NYT notes that "The publication said Mr. Jackson was unavailable to comment." We should also all be clear that Mr. Jackson fell victim to false and misleading "evidence" pushed on him by a Whitehead advocate who has become notorious for spreading half-truths and erroneous "evidence." Mr. Jackson is responsible for what he has written, but it must be a very uncomfortable position for Mr. Jackson to be in, and I reserve my harshest rebuke for the people who hoodwinked Mr. Jackson with erroneous analyses and dubious "facts." For more than two dozen detailed articles setting the records straight on Gustave Whitehead, please visit my site devoted to the Whitehead Myth http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/index.html
2
And we are to believe that Jane's owners knew nothing of the Whitehead recognition before it went into the 100th anniversary edition? Nonsense. They are being pressured by the likes of Smithsonian, undoubtedly, which uses Jane's as a #1 resource for its facts. Sorry, that doesn't wash. If you want documented facts rather than editorializing by those who have Wright-supporting websites, go to www.gustavewhitehead.info. The flying machines site, which Mr. Gray hosts, unfortunately, is awash with wild accusations and misinformation. Most of it alleges that all Whitehead researchers and witnesses were liars. I happen to know this isn't so, having been immersed in the Whitehead research for over 50 years, and having met some of the eye-witnesses. Some people just won't every accept Whitehead flew first and must fight it to the end.
1
Stating that Jane's is being pressured would require evidence to back it up. Otherwise it is just another conspiracy theory. I have examined the website you heavily promote in your posts and, in my opinion, it fails to present any solid evidence that Whitehead ever flew that isn't based on hearsay, conspiracy theories, the Jane's announcement, or modified No.21 reproductions that were built without the aid of original drawings or scientific data, but with the aid of nearly a century of aeronautical advancements.
You state that Gray alleges that all Whitehead researchers and witnesses are liars, but it should be pointed out that Whitehead supporters have attempted to diminish or dismiss unfavorable claims of researchers and witnesses by suggesting grudges against Whitehead, criminal behavior, insanity, financial interests, regional bias, etc. Interested readers should read the various sites on the topics and draw their own conclusions.
You state that Gray alleges that all Whitehead researchers and witnesses are liars, but it should be pointed out that Whitehead supporters have attempted to diminish or dismiss unfavorable claims of researchers and witnesses by suggesting grudges against Whitehead, criminal behavior, insanity, financial interests, regional bias, etc. Interested readers should read the various sites on the topics and draw their own conclusions.
1
Susan, I challenge you to point out a single instance where I have ever stated that "all Whitehead researchers and witnesses were liars."
I never have said nor would I ever say something as absurd as that.
Also, where in this wide world did you ever hear that the Smithsonian "uses Jane's as a #1 resource for its facts" - that is a remarkably inane statement.
Carroll F. Gray http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/index.html
I never have said nor would I ever say something as absurd as that.
Also, where in this wide world did you ever hear that the Smithsonian "uses Jane's as a #1 resource for its facts" - that is a remarkably inane statement.
Carroll F. Gray http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/index.html
1
An extensive commentary on the Whitehead claims (and rebuttal) can be found at:
www.wright-brothers.org/Whitehead-First-Flight-Anniversary-2013-Press-Re...
www.wright-brothers.org/Whitehead-First-Flight-Anniversary-2013-Press-Re...
The primary piece of evidence is a 1901 newspaper article in the Bridgeport Herald, describing the flight in considerable detail:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=4p5LGG1h9z0C&dat=19010818&... (go to page 5)
Whitehead was not an astute promoter, unlike the Wrights, who arranged for a photographer to be present. As reported in the article, he did not see commercial potential in his contraption.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=4p5LGG1h9z0C&dat=19010818&... (go to page 5)
Whitehead was not an astute promoter, unlike the Wrights, who arranged for a photographer to be present. As reported in the article, he did not see commercial potential in his contraption.
3
Wrights didn't arrange for a photographer. They set the camera up and asked one of the men for the life saving station to take the photo we have of the first flight. The man was asked if the got the picture, and he replied he didn't know. It was the first time he'd used a camera.
1
i Wish good luck to all US airmen
It looks like Kristin Hussey's article has raised the hackles of the two sides in this matter. I hope that our nation is not in danger of being put asunder because of this matter. Many, if not all, business ideas, technologies and scientific theories have simultaneous origins, but states do have their pride. And discovery has its embellishment.
Some engineering, while operational, just hits a historical dead end, for whatever reason, and, taken a different development path, uh, takes off. So much followed the Wright effort that it is maybe not the only origin of flight, but an an origin that is well documented. I built a model of the Wright engine when I was a kid, not the Whitehead engine.
It looks like Whitehead is a meaningful part of aviation history, and that's good enough, state mottos aside. And if Connecticut, Ohio and North Carolina go to war over this, I hope Gov Christie declares NJ a neutral state. I've got relatives in all three of those states and I'm not looking forward to violent historical arguments during the holidays.
Some engineering, while operational, just hits a historical dead end, for whatever reason, and, taken a different development path, uh, takes off. So much followed the Wright effort that it is maybe not the only origin of flight, but an an origin that is well documented. I built a model of the Wright engine when I was a kid, not the Whitehead engine.
It looks like Whitehead is a meaningful part of aviation history, and that's good enough, state mottos aside. And if Connecticut, Ohio and North Carolina go to war over this, I hope Gov Christie declares NJ a neutral state. I've got relatives in all three of those states and I'm not looking forward to violent historical arguments during the holidays.
2
Whitehead or Wrights, it's preposterous that state legislatures should be passing resolutions or making laws commemorating apocryphal events, much with the same hysteria as defining that the mathematical constant pi has a value of three.
11
I am not from Connecticut, but I thought they just got over a budget crisis that will be back next year. I thought their pensions were screwed up to.
Malfunctioning state legislatures - including mine in NJ - are at the root of the failure to properly govern in this country. God, don't they have more important things to do.
Malfunctioning state legislatures - including mine in NJ - are at the root of the failure to properly govern in this country. God, don't they have more important things to do.
10
My great uncle, Junius Harworth was Mr. Whitehead's assistant and later public relations man. He was Stella Randolph's chief source for her "Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead." When I was a young teen my great uncle visted our house for the last time before his death. He told me about witnessing Whitehead's flights and also the time the Wright brothers came to Whitehead's workshop in Bridgeport(which Orville later denied). He also showed me airmail letters from Otto Lilienthal, one of the Prussian glider pioneers, and Alberto Santos-Dumont, the Brazilian flight pioneer both of which Whitehead had worked in his youth. If Whitehead were merely a dreamer, would he have had the attention of these prominent aviators? I have written two articles dealing with Whitehead:"What Julius Knew" www.gustave-whitehead.com/history/witness-statements/junius-harworth-193... and"Women Who Supported Whitehead's Flights" www.magyarnews.org/search.php?search=Martha+Schipul+Women+who+supported+Whitehead's=flights&location=0
7
Martha Matus Schipul's comment is on par with the few other supporters of the specious Whitehead claims. The Wrights were in North Carolina at the time of their supposed visit to Whitehead's workshop. I would love to see the "airmail" letters from Otto Lilienthal, who died in 1896. Whitehead never worked for Lilienthal or Santos-Dumont. Jane's should have never gotten involved with this nefarious attempt to distort history and malign two of humanity's greatest inventors.
7
Can you please explain how Otto Lilienthal was able to send an airmail letter?
8
It is interesting to see that IHS Jane's is now claiming this position about Whitehead being the first to fly is Mr. Jackson's opinion and not that of IHS Jane's. In a letter I received dated 10 Dec 2013 from a senior official at IHS Jane's, it states "we are confident that Paul Jackson, editor of IHS Jane's All The World's Aircraft, followed our editorial processes for fact based analysis."
Why is discussion about who flew first so important? No one source should be able to distort history. It is the constant challenge associated with multiple reports, documents and investigations that helps substantiate the truth about what really happened in the past. The Wrights' achievement as the first to fly meets this test, Whitehead's does not.
Why is discussion about who flew first so important? No one source should be able to distort history. It is the constant challenge associated with multiple reports, documents and investigations that helps substantiate the truth about what really happened in the past. The Wrights' achievement as the first to fly meets this test, Whitehead's does not.
6
I would really like to see that email from Jane's, which supported Jackson's statement in their hundredth edition. It is ludicrous to think that they didn't sign off on it. In about 1973, Jane's also published a book recognizing Whitehead, promising my father (world authority on Whitehead for most of four decades) they'd do so, but only in the German edition. The English edition recognized the Wrights. This is highly political, and all about money and power. Publishers are terrified of losing either. That doesn't mean Whitehead was not first in powered flight. It means powerful forces want him not to be credited.
Also I think the claim by Mr. Whitehead that his first powered flight reached the moon, allowing him to bring back some Roquefort cheese from its surface, casts a lot of doubt on the entire story.
1
It would have been helpful for NYT to have described the nature of the evidence being offered by Janes (eyewitness accounts? By whom? What did they say?) so we have some basis for forming our own opinion. I personally don't understand why the Montgolfier brothers and their ballooning aren't given more prominence in the the story of flight (nor, for that matter, do I understand why the people of the 19th century didn't show more interest in the possiblities of balloon flight--dirigibles would have been well within their technological capability. The Civil War could have been ended with aerial bombardment rather than bloody trench warfare...)
7
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.
1
This article fails to mention whether it fact checked the Jane's article, which does mention many eye-witnesses to the Whtehead flight. The article turns a very interesting historical question into a petty, snarky debate. Many blog posts on the subject of Whitehead vs. the Wrights go into deeper detail.
7
Without any connection to Connecticut, North Carolina, or Ohio, I declare myself free of bias in this dispute. It may be my imagination, but I think there's a bit of slant in this article towards the advocates for Whitehead. The credibility of the "Whitehead-first-in-powered-flight" evidence is not discussed. The link to a website presenting evidence for Whitehead is given in the second sentence of the article, whereas the link to the Smithsonian's detailed criticism of that evidence is buried deep in the article, and is mischaracterized as a " ...statement ...". I enjoy reading about bloviating state legislators as much as anyone, but I would have liked a bit more information with the entertainment.
8
Go to www.gustavewhitehead.info for credible, documented information posted to educate the public and present facts, not theories, about Whitehead.
1
Odd both surnames start with a W.
1
The real farce about all of this is that gliders and hot air balloons had been around for centuries before the Wright brothers managed to fly the length of a Boeing 767 (yes, that's how far they flew, and about as high as the tailpiece of that jet). Hard to tell who invented the concept first, but it had been around since before Daedalus.
4
But the Wright Brothers were the first to be able to turn and control their airplane in flight. The several others who got their craft off the ground around that time were either hopping or gliding.
11
If you read the accounts of the first Wright brothers flight it was clearly an uncontrolled hop and glide affair. Their control mechanisms only became effective with much tinkering on subsequent flights...
3
The Wright brothers weren't the first to get off the ground on powered flight with a "heavier than air" craft. For example, Clément Ader flew his Éole 13 years before the Wright's Flyer. The latter was a better craft though, because it flew higher and the flight direction could be controlled. Both these crafts are pioneering efforts.
1
Yeah, and the French themselves declared the Wrights the masters of flight when Wilbur visited and flew figure-eights over a crowd of spectators. After he landed many tins of escargot got opened and there was much dousing with champagne amidst the clamor of ejaculatory praise. Most of it in French, we should guess.
1
It's interesting in terms of a squabble between states. But what's the historical record? Were any photographs of Whitehead in flight taken? Were there any witnesses? Any news reports? Did he only fly once? Why did he stop? Did he ever take flight in any machine-powered plane, be it Plane No 21 or 22 or any other that met the criteria put forward (landing at the same or higher height as where you took off, etc.)? Any witnesses to any flight by him ever? In his new book "The Wright Brothers," author David McCullough dismisses Whitehead as a crank and says the myth of him (or others) beating the Wright brothers endured even though there has never been any evidence to support it. This article certainly offers nothing new to that tenuous claim.
18
There is a mass of information about Whitehead's flights. To answer your questions:
Yes, at least one in-flight photos was taken at the time one of his numerous flights with No. 21 (pictured above the article) before the Wrights. It was seen and reported by the Scientific American of January 27, 1906. Yes, he was flying on ground as "level" as that of the Wrights at Kitty Hawk, which shows a slight slope. Witness to the flight of Aug. 14, 1901 was a major CT newspaper sports editor, Dick Howell. Published the story four days later in its sole weekly edition (Bridgeport Sunday Herald). On that day he made several other flights which 2 witnesses signed notarized affidavits for, in the 1930's, following interviews. There are 18 eyewitnesses who saw Whitehead make powered flights at various times before the Wrights, several of these saw more than one flight. Most of these signed affidavits and many interviewed several times. The Wright contingent, which includes authors who have made mucho dinero off saying they were first are going to deny Whitehead flew, even if ten popes swore on a stack of bibles that he did. They are also affiliated with Smithsonian which will lose the Wright Flyer if it admits anyone else flew first. The contract they signed with Orville's executors in 1948 specifies all this, and was drawn up by none other than the Whitehead detractors who'd fought his claim for the prior 9 years. www.gustavewhitehead.info.
Yes, at least one in-flight photos was taken at the time one of his numerous flights with No. 21 (pictured above the article) before the Wrights. It was seen and reported by the Scientific American of January 27, 1906. Yes, he was flying on ground as "level" as that of the Wrights at Kitty Hawk, which shows a slight slope. Witness to the flight of Aug. 14, 1901 was a major CT newspaper sports editor, Dick Howell. Published the story four days later in its sole weekly edition (Bridgeport Sunday Herald). On that day he made several other flights which 2 witnesses signed notarized affidavits for, in the 1930's, following interviews. There are 18 eyewitnesses who saw Whitehead make powered flights at various times before the Wrights, several of these saw more than one flight. Most of these signed affidavits and many interviewed several times. The Wright contingent, which includes authors who have made mucho dinero off saying they were first are going to deny Whitehead flew, even if ten popes swore on a stack of bibles that he did. They are also affiliated with Smithsonian which will lose the Wright Flyer if it admits anyone else flew first. The contract they signed with Orville's executors in 1948 specifies all this, and was drawn up by none other than the Whitehead detractors who'd fought his claim for the prior 9 years. www.gustavewhitehead.info.
2
Aviation, as most of us know it, started with Boeing (B-707); powered by P&W.