On Wed, 23 May 2001, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> >Maybe it's just American capitalist propaganda,
> >
> Yes, it is. Even Clinton recognized Santos-Dumont precedence
> in inventing the airplane.
Alberto, as long as I've been on Brin-L you've denounced Clinton at every
turn...and now he's a reliable source? Fooey. ;-P
> >but I'm under the distinct
> >impression that the Wright Bros. first flew in 1903, and were attempting
> >to market in 1905 an improved airplane capable of flying for miles--sorry,
> >kilometers.
> >
> >Any reason I shouldn't believe that?
> >
> I guess this 1905 date is wrong, or maybe they didn't have an
> airplane but they were hoping to have one.
Others have posted links: here's one that applies specifically to 1905.
It could just be propaganda, though. <bg>
http://www.wright-brothers.org/History/19051.htm
Notice the flags that
> I put in S-D's claims: *heavier than air*, *public* and *self-propelled*.
> AFAIK, WB's 1903 flight was not public, and the launch was
> by a catapult.
Here's the thing: Santos-Dumont was an international celebrity years
before his airplane flight based on his work with dirigibles. He worked
in Paris, the fabuolous center of western culture and techology at the
time. So when he said he'd fly an airplane, the whole world showed up to
watch. Compared to that, the work of the Wright brothers happened in
obscurity, true.
On the other hand, the Wright Bros. documented their work, shared it with
friends, coworkers, and photographed the flights...please prove that all
this well-accepted history has been falsified before you expect me to
believe it didn't happen.
The comparison is obvious: the Wright brothers were the equivalent of a
no-name startup company, whereas Santos-Dumont was the equivalent of
Microsoft. The Wright brothers were nobodies in Ohio struggling to be taken
seriously and to fund their work, whereas Santos-Dumont was well-known and
well-funded.
Really, the only difference you can possibly hang this debate on is the
Wright brothers' launch by catapult. One might argue that the only real
airplane is one that can take off under its own power, but that's mostly
just a matter of having a better (more expensive) engine and wheels, and
it doesn't involve any of the factors that distinguish an airplane from a
dirigible, say: heavier than air, lift gained from airfoils, movable
control surfaces, self-propelled, etc.
But suppose we grant the assumption that the only real airplane is one
that needn't be launched by catapult. Fine. I'll posit another
assumption: the only real airplane is one that can actually fly somewhere
for a sustained period of time. Santos-Dumont's could go perhaps the
length of a football field. The 1905 version of the Wright Flyer could go
upwards of 20 miles. (And it sure as heck wasn't the catapult that gave
it enough acceleration to make that distance!)
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
