Powered Controlled Flight Minus the Wright Brothers

[papacavy]

Technically not a "what if" I would just like the educated opinions of the members of this site, particularly if you are well versed in the technology and history of the period 1895-1905. Let us imagine the, for whatever reason, the Wright brothers are not in the development of the practical flying machine. Let us also eliminate Gustave Whitehead from this "competition" because he did not have an aeroplane with practical applications, nor any control surfaces (controlling a large aircraft with only weight shifting, as in a hang-glider, is far from practical) nor any concrete ideas as to what to do after a successful flight (remember he all but disappeared from the historical record, save for a few attempts - let us not muddy this up with a discussion about the merits of Whitehead, please). Who would have been the next best candidate for fully controllable and sustainable powered flight?

I await the answers with great anticipation. But remember, stay civil, no bashing or bullying. The results if this discussion may go on a bog, into a book or on my facebook page.

Let the discussion BEGIN!

 

[Bill Walker]

Not to take anything away from Orville and Wilbur, but lots of other guys were getting close, with little or no knowledge of the details of the Wright brothers' work. Bell, Langley, Curtiss, Santos Dumont, etc. would have got it right eventually. The Wright brothers applied scientific and engineering methodologies, lots of other people could (and did) do this at the same time.

Here is another interesting "what if" - if Lilienthal hadn't died in a crash, and if he had found some financial support or teamed up with a practical engine builder, what would aviation history look like?

 

[papacavy]

Interesting. Very interesting.

 

[royabulgaf]

Bill Walker pretty much nails it. I would say Santos-Dumont, for the aeronautical expertise, or Langley, for his government backing.

 

[Archibald]

Perhaps Santos Dumont or Ferber or Farman, around 1906-1908, in France.

 

[Hal]

Percy Pilcher?

 

[papacavy]

Langley would have had to make major changes to his Aerodromes, like landing gear, control surfaces and make a leap in his own understanding of the stresses imposed on an airframe. I think if he gave up the catapult launch, he would have done much better than he did. Government funding doesn't always provide, however. Witness Clement Ader's dealing with the French government. When he didn't deliver, they quickly pulled out. Not sure about Ferber or Farman, must do more research. Santos-Dumont is a good choice and so is Pilcher. I'm leaning a tad towards Montgomery.

 

[Bill Walker]

The Wright brothers did quite well for a while without what we would call landing gear, and they depended on a launch catapult system. Curtiss flew a modification of a Langley design in 1914. By apply engineering methods, Langley could have got there by himself. It took Santos-Dumont a few flights to figure out that he needed better flight controls, but I'm not sure he copied the Wrights when he finally figured it out.

The loss of the Wright brothers may have delayed things a few years, but I'm still sure the modern airplane would have been born, and by today would look much the same, without Orville and Wilbur.

 

[Schneiderman]

The crux of the issue was really the design of a viable system of control; there were several pioneers coming close to attaining powered take-off and flight but few had a adequate grasp of the control issue. Maybe Santos Dumont or Bell, Curtiss and the AEA group would have got there first.

 

[papacavy]

Totally agree. More food for thought.

 

[royabulgaf]

Plus to Schneiderman- From what I understand about the history of flight, from around 1900 or so or even earlier, the power and lift problems were solved. Many of these so-called pioneers just seemed to slap some winged vehicle together and try to fly. OTOH, thw Wrights decided that if they were going to build an airplane, they best learn how to fly first. However, no one does popular biographies of the failures and also-rans, si I don't really know. This is why I'm saying Santos-Dumont, as he seemed to figure out the control problem.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Gustave Weisskopf...

 

[Avimimus]

Plus to Schneiderman- From what I understand about the history of flight, from around 1900 or so or even earlier, the power and lift problems were solved. Many of these so-called pioneers just seemed to slap some winged vehicle together and try to fly. OTOH, thw Wrights decided that if they were going to build an airplane, they best learn how to fly first. However, no one does popular biographies of the failures and also-rans, si I don't really know. This is why I'm saying Santos-Dumont, as he seemed to figure out the control problem.

It may be worth noting that poorly engineered designs, designs with bizarre aerodynamic theories and dubious control were extremely common until WWI... A lot of the workable solutions still needed refinement as well.

 

[Rickshaw]

Hiram Maxim had a steam powered flying machine which apparently successfully flew in 1894. He didn't pursue the concept though.

 

[Bill Walker]

Maxim had the same problem as a lot of people (other than the Wrights) at the time. Maybe "too narrow a focus" is a better term than "problem". Notice the complete lack of control surfaces. His goal, understandable at the time, was to fly straight ahead, in short hops, in a very stable machine. The reason the Wrights stand out in history is that they were amongst the first to realize that a useful airplane would have to turn when and as far, and only when and only as far, the pilot wanted it to.