Clément Ader’s Avion III

[steelpillow]

Can you also verify how you came to the conclusion of 40 to 50 kph based on what we know about the engine power to weight ratio?

I gave you the numbers for the Dunne D.5. Its engine was a Green 35 hp type which Wikipedia gives as weighing 184 lb (83 kg). With fuel and oil tankage (it had total-loss lubrication), a radiator (it was water-cooled) and twin metal propellers with chain drives, it would have had a gross weight in much the same ballpark as Ader's power system. It flew at around 40 mph (60 kph) so I knocked a bit off for the Eole's III's poor aerodynamics. Its airframe was also heavier than intended, thanks to Short Bros. sturdy construction, and its undercarriage unusually robust to cope with the rough grass of the Aero Club's flying ground. Also its wing covering was linen or cotton fabric above and below, not just one layer of silk - and a biplane. So even though its span was less, its wing area was comparable and its covering heavier. The Aeole III is almost certainly somewhat lighter overall, which would actually raise my speed estimate. Now, you may choose not to "buy" such an evidence-based comparison, but to do so without even mentioning it - or knowing all the details - is not really sustainable. Your turn now to verify how you concluded the comparison is invalid?

Ader managed the first with his original Eole, the Wrights the second in 1903 and the Wrights again the third with (I think) the Flyer III around 1907. I would like to see all three achievements properly recognised.

No one is disagreeing with the fact that the Eole got off the ground under power, but at 8 inches above the ground, you are in ground effect (am I repeating myself?), so it really can't be qualified as anything more than a hop

You are certainly repeating me. You snipped my previous paragraph in which the "first", referred to in the bit you did quote, is just as you repeated. So I am not sure what you are trying to add to what I said.

 

[galgot]

Do we know at what height the Wright Flier flew the first time ?
I always find the distance (120 ft/ 36 m), but no altitude.

 

[Archibald]

not very high ?
...

 

[steelpillow]

Do we know at what height the Wright Flier flew the first time ?
I always find the distance (120 ft/ 36 m), but no altitude.

The flight was pretty wobbly as the plane was unstable, the control system counter-intuitive and the pilot had never flown a powered aircraft before either. Height was continually varying and was not really "sustained" with any definable number. It was certainly very low, well within ground effect, and I'd guess it averaged around six to ten feet. (2 to 3 meters)

 

[galgot]

not very high ?
...

The first flight, I'm guessing in ground effect too. And that doesn't make it less impressive.
I don't understand the ground effect point. For me the definition of "fly", is "lifting from the ground" or "being above the ground". Be it in ground effect or not. And anyway , all planes are in ground effect when they take-off...

 

[TomcatViP]

There is video in case you care....

 

[steelpillow]

I don't understand the ground effect point. For me the definition of "fly", is "lifting from the ground" or "being above the ground". Be it in ground effect or not. And anyway , all planes are in ground effect when they take-off...

Flying in ground effect requires less power than escaping it and is therefore easier to achieve. The aircraft is basically just a hovercraft or ekranoplan. It is also easier to fly slowly and safely. Many of the early pioneers learned to fly in ground effect before daring to climb out of it - even if their machines could do so. Any practical aeroplane can quickly escape ground effect and achieve free flight and, in my humble opinion, that achievement deserves its own accolade. You may still disagree, but at least I hope you now understand.

 

[galgot]

I don't understand the ground effect point. For me the definition of "fly", is "lifting from the ground" or "being above the ground". Be it in ground effect or not. And anyway , all planes are in ground effect when they take-off...

Flying in ground effect requires less power than escaping it and is therefore easier to achieve. The aircraft is basically just a hovercraft or ekranoplan. It is also easier to fly slowly and safely. Many of the early pioneers learned to fly in ground effect before daring to climb out of it - even if their machines could do so. Any practical aeroplane can escape ground effect and achieve free flight and, in my humble opinion, achieving that deserves its own accolade. But that is all it is. You may disagree, but at least I hope you now understand.

I knew and agree with all of that.

 

[steelpillow]

I knew and agree with all of that.

Then what don't you understand about the ground effect point?

 

[TomcatViP]

 

[galgot]

I knew and agree with all of that.

Then what don't you understand about the ground effect point?

I don’t understand the point being made about Ader’s Avion being in ground effect, while the Flyer first flight was also in ground effect. They where both above the ground in ground effect.
So Ader did a ridiculous 20 cm above the ground in ground effect , while the Flyer did a much better first flight at maybe 2 /3 m, in ground effect too…
And did prove it could get above ground effect in later flights of course, while clearly Ader's Avion couldn't... but still got 20 cm above the ground. If the point is just being above the ground (fly) in an heavier than air, then ground effect or not is irrelevant... Whatever.

 

[steelpillow]

I knew and agree with all of that.

Then what don't you understand about the ground effect point?

I don’t understand the point being made about Ader’s Avion being in ground effect, while the Flyer first flight was also in ground effect. They where both above the ground in ground effect.
So Ader did a ridiculous 20 cm above the ground in ground effect , while the Flyer did a much better first flight at maybe 2 /3 m, in ground effect too…
And did prove it could get above ground effect in later flights of course, while clearly Ader's Avion couldn't... but still got 20 cm above the ground. Whatever.

Oh, right, you have a point. The Eole's performance usually gets described as a hop while the Flyer's is acknowledged as a flight. I just kind of took on the conventional wisdom. Yet the low "hop" was longer than the "flight". Air historian Gibbs-Smith has commented on the shortness of that "flight" but admitted he was a lone voice. The main distinction in these two cases is the claim that Ader's was not controllable but Orville's was - barely. H'mm. Maybe I should add control as a fourth accolade along the way. But If Ader made the first ground-effect flight, who made the first hop?

 

[galgot]

I knew and agree with all of that.

Then what don't you understand about the ground effect point?

I don’t understand the point being made about Ader’s Avion being in ground effect, while the Flyer first flight was also in ground effect. They where both above the ground in ground effect.
So Ader did a ridiculous 20 cm above the ground in ground effect , while the Flyer did a much better first flight at maybe 2 /3 m, in ground effect too…
And did prove it could get above ground effect in later flights of course, while clearly Ader's Avion couldn't... but still got 20 cm above the ground. Whatever.

Oh, right, you have a point. The Eole's performance usually gets described as a hop while the Flyer's is acknowledged as a flight. I just kind of took on the conventional wisdom. Yet the low "hop" was longer than the "flight". Air historian Gibbs-Smith has commented on the shortness of that "flight" but admitted he was a lone voice. The main distinction in these two cases is the claim that Ader's was not controllable but Orville's was - barely. H'mm. Maybe I should add control as a fourth accolade along the way. But If Ader made the first ground-effect flight, who made the first hop?

Henson's Ariel ?

 

[steelpillow]

Henson's steam carriage was never built, only a model of it was flown. But forget half what I said, the Wrights went on to make more and longer flights that day at Kitty Hawk. So really, the 50 m distance of the Eole was too short to be a flight; it was the first hop after all. Oh look, the men in white coats are coming to put me back into lockdown...

 

[galgot]

Ah, I remember reading about a "model" of the Ariel that flew. But mixed "model" with "version"... so it was indeed a scale model with no-one in it then...
But anyway, at that point it gets so much back in time, that we have no photograph proof of anything, and the testimonies gets really blurred. A bit like Ader's Eole btw.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Henson's steam carriage was never built, only a model of it was flown. But forget half what I said, the Wrights went on to make more and longer flights that day at Kitty Hawk. So really, the 50 m distance of the Eole was too short to be a flight; it was the first hop after all. Oh look, the men in white coats are coming to put me back into lockdown...

There must be a lot of us in rooms with 'comfortable wall paper' now.

 

[steelpillow]

...it gets so much back in time, that we have no photograph proof of anything, and the testimonies gets really blurred.

That is an argument popularized by the Smithsonian's crusade against Whitehead, and for all I know originated by them. But it is largely untenable. We do not airbrush out of history every technical achievement before photography was invented, or deny that Cayley built a manned controllable glider because there is controversy about who flew in it or its exact flightpath is unknown. It is the job of any competent historian to examine testimonies, seek out contradictions, burrow into the lives, circumstances and motives of the people who recorded them, and thus to draw out the truth of the matter. Going in with preconceived notions leads one to rewrite history according to those notions - a device which the Smithsonian has at one time or another employed both for and against the Wrights' claims. None of their words on the subject can be trusted, save where they parrot a prior source, and the lack of photographic proof is a prime example of how they are still at it. (Sorry, I mean no ill of a venerable and wonderful aviation museum, but we all make mistakes and it is the business of any institution of the Smithsonian's stature to admit and expose its own with as much gusto as it exposes others. While they fail to do so, even limiting access to key historic sources, they not only pollute the historical truth for all of us but also do needless and nigh-on irreparable damage to their own reputation). (And on Whitehead, I have no idea to what extent he flew. Two extreme camps have so polluted both sides of the story, and deliberately and with malice locked away the truth from unbiased historical research, that it becomes impossible to fathom.) </rant>

 

[Archibald]

My personal opinion (if anyone cares LMAO) is that the first who mastered *repeated* and *controled* flight(s) were the Wrights, in 1904-1905.
And that's what really matters in the end.

Part of the issue is, what they achieved on December 17, 1903 (flight length, notably) might be inferior to some earlier "uncontrolled lift-offs" by Jatho, Ader or Whitehead.

BUT the Wright PERSISTED and, right from 1904-1905, had completely crushed and beaten those earlier atempts. Pioneering: height, length, turning, controlled flight.

It took late 1906 for the French to make longer and longer flights... still in straight line. The first "closed circuit" was Henry Farman in January 1908. But the Wrights had done that right from 1905.

The Wrights come to Le Mans in July 1908 and really impressed everybody. Ernest Archdeacon was famously in such state of shock, he kept repeating "we are beaten, we no longer exist". That was a little exagereted: only six months later, by early 1909, the French had turned the tide.

Basically a timeline could be as follow (1889 - 1909)

1889 - 1904
repeated "uncontrolled liftoff" are achieved randomly across the world by
- Ader
- a Chanute alumni (Pilcher ? can't remember)
- Whitehead (doubtful)
- Jatho
- the Wrights (1901- 1904 early experiments)

1904-1907
The Wrights rule the world. They are the one and only who truly master flight - turning circles, flying high and far (kilometers).
At this point of time
- they have beaten all the aforementioned pioneers
- the french are stuck on the ground; nothing remarquable before Santos-dumont November 1906 200 ft long flight. Bleriot, Ferber, Voisin, Farman, Santos-Dumont: they tried from 1905 or even earlier, but achieved little.

IMHO I think Ferber was, among the lot, the one with the earliest, best chances to achieve something similar to the wrights. Yet, I think it speaks volume that Ferber, who knew about the Wrights, tried very early (1903-04) looked for the best engine of the era, and had support from the military - even him, he lagged behind the Wrights. Once again, no insult to Ferber to acknowledge he did not achieved any valuable flight before 1907.

It is not insulting the Wrights (either) to recognize and acknowledge the fact that, by paranoia and fear of being robbed of their breakthrough - they remained "stealth" during that time. Including, none of the "records" they established - the first height-speed-distance breakthroughs - were recorded officially.

This also led the french (despite Ferber and Chanute knowledge of the Wright achievements) to believe that Santos-Dumont November 1906 200 ft long flight at Bagatelle (near Paris) was THE breakthrough. The reality at this point was that Santos-dumont had achieved what the Wrights had done eaxctly three years earlier, in December 1903.

Hence the Wright at this exact point in History had a three years headstart over the rest of the world.

1908
Turning point. Farman manages to turn a complete circuit, 1 km long. The Wrights realize they have to get out of isolation. They come to Le Mans and makes a startling demonstration of superiority.

1909
The French turn the tide. And across the world (Canada, Great Britain) other pioneers achieve their country first flight.

 

[galgot]

...it gets so much back in time, that we have no photograph proof of anything, and the testimonies gets really blurred.

That is an argument popularized by the Smithsonian's crusade against Whitehead, and for all I know originated by them. But it is largely untenable. We do not airbrush out of history every technical achievement before photography was invented, or deny that Cayley built a manned controllable glider because there is controversy about who flew in it or its exact flightpath is unknown. It is the job of any competent historian to examine testimonies, seek out contradictions, burrow into the lives, circumstances and motives of the people who recorded them, and thus to draw out the truth of the matter. Going in with preconceived notions leads one to rewrite history according to those notions - a device which the Smithsonian has at one time or another employed both for and against the Wrights' claims. None of their words on the subject can be trusted, save where they parrot a prior source, and the lack of photographic proof is a prime example of how they are still at it. (Sorry, I mean no ill of a venerable and wonderful aviation museum, but we all make mistakes and it is the business of any institution of the Smithsonian's stature to admit and expose its own with as much gusto as it exposes others. While they fail to do so, even limiting access to key historic sources, they not only pollute the historical truth for all of us but also do needless and nigh-on irreparable damage to their own reputation). (And on Whitehead, I have no idea to what extent he flew. Two extreme camps have so polluted both sides of the story, and deliberately and with malice locked away the truth from unbiased historical research, that it becomes impossible to fathom.) </rant>

Yes, well, its not contradictory. Testimonies that old, can and would likely, get blurred in details later by partisant researchers trying to pull the view in one direction or another... That's what i meant by blurred. Just as your Smithsonian example shows. Without official observation, no photograph, let alone no testing equipments existing at the time, we only have private testimonies that can be dismissed as "fake" , "crazy" , " he couldn't see it, i found he was blind at the time..." , by later "researchers" having an agenda.
In the end , as with Whitehead, you don't know...
At least with Eole, we have the official observation from the army there, so 20 cm, but still only that (i think).

 

[Archibald]

As for the Whitehead controversy - nowadays, we would call it *clickbait*.

More generally, I lost the count of how many times I saw the deadly stupid and misleading headline

"XX achieved flight before the Wrights".

That's why I'm making the distinction uncontrolled-liftoff =/= controlled flight.
It is the only wait to not succumb to the "clickbait bullshit".

Still it is pretty fascinating to speculate about those "uncontrolled liftoff" achievement. Had those guys quietly persisted like the Wrights...
Karl Jatho had the best chance. Whitehead - we don't know. I think it still shows that around 1903-04 (and not before) the state of the art and technology had matured enough (IC engines power-to-weight, notably) that some cleaver or lucky guy could start mastering controlled flight. The Wrights were smart, cautious, self-sustaining and obstinated - and they pulled it. Kudos to them.

Very much like "Nungesser vs Lindbergh" or "Mallory & Irvine vs Hillary and Tensing". Tantalizing close, but no cigar. If you die or don't repeat the feat, history won't be rewritten for you... what kills me is, when a son or grandson come claiming "my daddy did it, blah blah". For devious motivations (or with devious people).

 

[steelpillow]

That's what i meant by blurred.

Was it not clear that my discourse on historical methodology was addressing exactly what you meant?

Without official observation, no photograph, let alone no testing equipments existing at the time, we only have private testimonies that can be dismissed as "fake" , "crazy" , " he couldn't see it, i found he was blind at the time..." , by later "researchers" having an agenda.

So would you agree that the claims for Calyey, Pilcher, Hero's steam engine, Theaetetus' enumeration of the five "Platonic" solids, Archimedes' enumeration of their semi-regular analogues, and many other ancient achievements, that have come down to us only through personal accounts, are inadmissble through the lack of any unbiased "official" record or test equipment?

later "researchers" having an agenda.

You mean like the Smithsonian employing Glenn Curtiss to vandalize a priceless historical artefact, to wit Langley's Aerodrome, until it sort of flew, just so that they could justify their claim that their own ex-staffer had beaten the Wrights? And then engaging in a decades-long legal battle with Orville Wright before finally being forced to cave in, and then agreeing to change sides with equal blind vehemence? Yes, I see what you mean. Whitehead never stood a chance.

 

[steelpillow]

As for the Whitehead controversy - nowadays, we would call it *clickbait*.

I see what you did there

 

[galgot]

Was it not clear that my discourse on historical methodology was addressing exactly what you meant?

Well, maybe i misunderstood, but it seems we are in complete agreement
As a non-native english reader, i may take time to fully understand and miss things ... Sorry bout that. still is interesting.

So would you agree that the claims for Calyey, Pilcher, Hero's steam engine, Theaetetus' enumeration of the five "Platonic" solids, Archimedes' enumeration of their semi-regular analogues, and many other ancient achievements, that have come down to us only through personal accounts, are inadmissble through the lack of any unbiased "official" record or test equipment?

This part of your setence is an example i have difficulty understand for example.
But from what i understand, i wouldn't say these claims are inadmissible. But they are what they are, claims. And the olders they are, the more they are likely to be subject to deformation. The more you get back in time, the more the same story is been written and re-written , by more and more peoples, with any kind of agenda, or even without any, just adding errors, that changes the story over the time. so they are historical claims, that have to be taken also with the storie of their following numerous reporters and writers, that is if we can.
At least photography, appeared in historical research as the possibility to have a physical proof of a recalled event.
That is, before photoshop of course

 

[steelpillow]

That's why I'm making the distinction uncontrolled-liftoff =/= controlled flight.

The standard distinction is made for sustained powered and controlled flight. By now, you can guess who used their institutional weight and influence to make that the de facto standard.

They had no need to require it free of ground effect, or I am sure they would have included that too. Imagine for example if Maxim had continued his experiments, adding controls and releasing his machine from its safety rails to fly in ground effect, with photographic and official evidence to support it. The only way for the Wrights to trump that would have been to recognise the first Flyer to escape into free vertical flight and we would all now be brainwashed into accepting that the first "true" flight took place in 1905.

 

[steelpillow]

So would you agree that the claims for Calyey, Pilcher, Hero's steam engine, Theaetetus' enumeration of the five "Platonic" solids, Archimedes' enumeration of their semi-regular analogues, and many other ancient achievements, that have come down to us only through personal accounts, are inadmissble through the lack of any unbiased "official" record or test equipment?

This part of your setence is an example i have difficulty understand for example.

I was just repeating what you had said.

But from what i understand, i wouldn't say these claims are inadmissible. But they are what they are, claims. And the olders they are, the more they are likely to be subject to deformation. The more you get back in time, the more the same story his been writen and re-written , by more and more peoples, with any kind of agenda, or even without any, just adding errors, that changes the story over the time. so they are historical claims, that have to be taken also with the storie of their following numerus reporters and writers, that is if we can.

So if Whitehead's claims are so much newer, they must be much less blurred by time. Why are they not also that much more admissible? What makes them so different?

 

[galgot]

So if Whitehead's claims are so much newer, they must be much less blurred by time. Why are they not also that much more admissible? What makes them so different?

Seems 120 years is enough to have some distortions on a reported event. But Whitehead being contemporary to the Wrights and other pionneers that could prove some success, no surprise the controversy is more heated. People thinking, if that was at the same time, at the same tech development period, then why not ...
Its like proving something in science.
You either need to have at least some credible (or at least "acceptable for the authorities"...) witnesses for the unique phenomenon (like Ader), or a physical proof (pictures) and the ability to reproduce the phenomenon (for the Wright). Seems poor Whitehead had none of that for his claim at about the time period when tech development could make powered flight possible. Maybe that's what makes it different.

 

[Archibald]

As for the Whitehead controversy - nowadays, we would call it *clickbait*.

I see what you did there

Lucky man - I'm unable to see it myself...

 

[steelpillow]

You either need to have at least some credible witnesses for the unique phenomenon (like Ader), or a physical proof (pictures) and the ability to reproduce the phenomenon (for the Wright). Seems Whitehead had none of that for his claim at a time period when tech development could make powered flight possible. Maybe that's what makes it different.

"Seems Whitehead had none of that for his claim at a time period when tech development could make powered flight possible." So runs the Smithsonian dogma - have you not got the message yet? The pro-Whitehead dogma claims a multitude of reliable witnesses, while at least two "replicas" of a Whitehead machine have been flown, see for example https://www.ctairandspace.org/aircraft-collection. As far as I can tell, neither side is prepared to open up their core document archives to impartial verification; each claims that the other demands you sign a gagging order before you can see them. Even the Smithsonian's current bulldog Tom Crouch has yet to deny that one, as far as I am aware. Unless anybody can point to them or him explicitly denying the allegation? I'd be very glad to see it in print, I hate what the place is doing to itself with its "history by contract" idiocy.
See also an interesting summary which drags in the Santos-Dumont 14bis for good measure: https://truthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com/2016/08/dumont-and-whitehead-replicas-that-fly.html
Shame it misses Ader or we could claim to be still on topic.

 

[steelpillow]

As for the Whitehead controversy - nowadays, we would call it *clickbait*.

I see what you did there

Lucky man - I'm unable to see it myself...

Your opinion is itself a neat example of clickbait polemic.

 

[galgot]

You either need to have at least some credible witnesses for the unique phenomenon (like Ader), or a physical proof (pictures) and the ability to reproduce the phenomenon (for the Wright). Seems Whitehead had none of that for his claim at a time period when tech development could make powered flight possible. Maybe that's what makes it different.

"Seems Whitehead had none of that for his claim at a time period when tech development could make powered flight possible." So runs the Smithsonian dogma - have you not got the message yet? The pro-Whitehead dogma claims a multitude of reliable witnesses, while at least two "replicas" of a Whitehead machine have been flown, see for example https://www.ctairandspace.org/aircraft-collection. As far as I can tell, neither side is prepared to open up their core document archives to impartial verification; each claims that the other demands you sign a gagging order before you can see them. Even the Smithsonian's current bulldog Tom Crouch has yet to deny that one, as far as I am aware. Unless anybody can point to them or him explicitly denying the allegation? I'd be very glad to see it in print, I hate what the place is doing to itself with its "history by contract" idiocy.
See also an interesting summary which drags in the Santos-Dumont 14bis for good measure: https://truthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com/2016/08/dumont-and-whitehead-replicas-that-fly.html
Shame it misses Ader or we could claim to be still on topic.

Houla... Restons courtois svp what message ?
You tell me there is a pro-Whitehead dogma, and a Smithsonian dogma, fighting each other, and hiding stuff. Ok fun then . New to me.
So new stuff will (or will not) appear some day to prove (or disprove) Whitehead claim definitively hopefully (not that i care much anyway...).

 

[Archibald]

Restons courtois svp

Seconded...

 

[steelpillow]

Houla... Restons courtois svp what message ?

Je crois que vous réferences mon autre reponse. Votre message "As for the Whitehead controversy - nowadays, we would call it *clickbait* " est il même le clickbait, n'est ce pas? C'est mon petit rigole, simplement. Si ce ne's pas courtois, je dois m'excuser.

 

[galgot]

Houla... Restons courtois svp what message ?

Je crois que vous réferences mon autre reponse. Votre message "As for the Whitehead controversy - nowadays, we would call it *clickbait* " est il même le clickbait, n'est ce pas? C'est mon petit rigole, simplement. Si ce ne's pas courtois, je dois m'excuser.

No prob

 

[Archibald]

Mention of clickbait was mine, not Galgot. And it wasn't clickbait by any mean. Rather anti-clickbait in the first place. As in "Let's grab some attention by getting a *clickbait* headline on a controversial subject, let's see... ah, the evil Wright brothers. THEY WEREN'T THE FIRST TO FLY WHITEHEAD DID IT BEFORE THEM.

INSERT [controversy to grab attention] here

- Tighart found Amelia Earhart at last
- Nungesser & Coli found, too
- Mallory found, bet Hillary (not Clinton, or maybe Q-anon in on that case) to the Everest summit

 

[Retrofit]

Correction, 1903, but yes, Ader got the Eole off the ground in 1890, a distance covered of 50 metres at a height above the ground of 8 inches could be described as lift off. As for the Avion III, no, it didn't even lift off, not according to Mensier's report, which claimed it remained firmly earthbound - and he was there witnessing not only the Avion III's trials, but those of the Eole as well.

The Wright brothers
- self-funded
- persisted for many years
- achieved controlled flight on top of liftoff.

Nuance to just be accurate (as nuuumannn mentioned in another thread): Mensier never claimed the Avion n°3 remained firmy earthbound. When he got knownledge of the report of Lieut. Binet who had checked the traces of the wheels on the ground, he wrote (Google translated):
"As I said to you previously, the night coming, we had a rather long journey to return to Versailles, we did not dwell on making observations that we did not regard as essential. You report to me a few days after you had noticed that on certain parts of the route the tracks of the wheels attenuated at first, disappeared completely afterwards, which indicated that during these interruptions the aircraft no longer landed on this ground. This result which I had not checked by myself was not made to surprise me, because I immediately wondered on my return from experience how it was possible that you had traveled the route of about 200 meters which separated the point where you left the track to the place of your fall without its wheels being broken under the weight of the aircraft. In the official report I could not affirm that I had seen flying or that I had noticed from the footprints that he had left the earth."
Mensier was also favorable to Avion n°3's repairs and continuation of the tests. But the Minister (Gal Billot) denied further funds.

Concerning the "self-funded": Ader spent between 1896 and 1897 around 200.000 francs (i.e. converted today around 800.000 Euros) on the Avion n°3.
Ader also studied an Avion n°4 with dual conter-rotating propellers not overlapping and differentially controlled. The steam engine being contractually State owned, he also designed an IC engine for this aircraft. After the termination of the contract by General Billot on March 31, 1898, Ader returned to his automobile and telephone businesses, a lot more profitable

Concerning the IGE/OGE flight, this subtility was studied only after WW1 (NACA TN771, 1934). So it is fairly easy to point this difference nowadays.

BTW (it is just a question, not to restart a polemic): Were the Wrights able to take off without their catapult system?

 

[steelpillow]

ah, the evil Wright brothers. THEY WEREN'T THE FIRST TO FLY WHITEHEAD DID IT BEFORE THEM.

Well, I might believe that was relevant here if anybody had been saying that. Rather, it is an inescapable part of a Secret Projects remit to re-examine such controversies and their relevance to similar ones; please do not be too dismayed if we do so from time to time.

 

[steelpillow]

BTW (it is just a question, not to restart a polemic): Were the Wrights able to take off without their catapult system?

Yes, provided they had an adequate headwind. The historic 1903 flight was into a suitable wind so they did not use the catapult.

 

[dan_inbox]

Do we know at what height the Wright Flier flew the first time ?

In fact, they reached a negative altitude, given that they started from a hilltop and went down the slope.
That first time, they basically managed to go down less steeply than the hillside.

So, that first accomplishment was in fact more a "controlled fall" than a "take off". They did better than Æthelmær and all the other blokes who jumped from a tower or cliff, yes, but they still basically finished off lower than where they started from. That's the extent of the great achievement on that day.
But hey, with enough blind nationalism, the narrative can be changed into what they believe today.


Smart alec mode: OFF
Don't start the transatlantic nuclear war yet, I was just having some fun. Can you bear some good-natured chain-yanking?
My only point is that there are usually more than one way to look at things, and that insisting on "no, mine is the only truth" is not the only option.

 

[Richard N]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/goqqi5

 

[dan_inbox]

That can't be the Éole, which was single-engined. Could be the Avion III.