At 11:01 AM 5/25/01 -0500, Reg Bautista wrote:
>>>From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>[some stuff snipped]
>>>That's why I claim that self-launch is essential
>>>for the *first* airplane, and not essencial after
>>>the self-lauch problem was solved.
>>
>>I replied (in part):
>>As far as being "public," the media was there in 1903, or at least someone
>>with a camera (there were pictures published in the papers). Doesn't that
>>make it public?
>
>
>Um, please ignore the above paragraph in my original post. If the 1903
>launch was by catapult, then it wasn't self-launched, and I don't know
>specifically of any public launches in 1905, once the Wright brothers
>solved the self-lauch problem (assuming they did by 1905; again, please
>somebody correct me if I'm wrong).
>
>That doesn't mean there weren't any public, self-launched flights in 1905,
>I just don't know about them and unfortunately, I don't have the time
>right now to research this further. Would anyone else care to take up
>that task?
>
>Thanks,
Here's something I found at
<http://hawaii.psychology.msstate.edu/invent/i/Santos-Dumont/Santos-Dumont.html>:
Alberto Santos-Dumont
Santos-Dumont is often set forth as an "Aviation First." Brazilians are
especially fond of their native son, and often claim he made the "first
true flight." Even the First Flight Society's shrine at Kitty Hawk, which
has inducted Santos-Dumont into its hall of fame, claims he was the "First
to fly a heavier-than-air machine in Europe" and that he was the "Third man
in all the world to fly a powered aircraft."
This is madness. Such claims are only true when you express the proper
qualifications. Clement Ader certainly took some sort of a hop through the
air in a powered craft long before Santos-Dumont. I think it quite likely
that Richard Pearse made a flight long before Santos-Dumont as well. What
about Maxim? If you don't like Maxim, how about Herring or Whitehead?
Such claims speak more about our need to count things than provide any
interesting illumination of the history of the airplane.
Let us briefly consider the claims that Santos-Dumont was the first to
"build and fly an aircraft 'heavier-than-the-air' by means of its own
propulsion" and that "Indeed, that primordial dream of Man - to fly free as
a bird - was made reality on that day, by the hands of the Brazilian
Santos-Dumont." These claims are based on such a stretching of historical
fact the truth can hardly be recognized.
The claim is based on disqualifying the flights made by the Wrights because
"The airplane didn't take off under its own power." The Wrights developed a
catapult system in 1904 that was used to launch their airplanes. This
system was used for many years. But they didn't use a catapult in 1903 and
took off from level ground. Many of their machines, including the 1905
model, could have taken off under their own power. All the Wrights needed
to do was to add wheels to their craft and have reasonably-level ground for
takeoffs. However, the Wrights didn't care to have their machine damaged in
takeoff from soft fields, and so employed an efficient, reliable, and
elegant means of launching their craft. To claim this
disqualifies their craft as airplanes is taking a minor matter far too
seriously. To ignore the performance of the 1903 craft is absurd.
By the way, others not only had their airplanes damaged during takeoff
using wheels, some people were even killed when the plane hit a rut during
takeoff. In comparison, the Wright's catapult system was, like most other
features of the Wright airplane, a beautiful and efficient solution to a
difficult problem.
[snip]
The Brazilians are proud of the accomplishments of Santos-Dumont, and have
every right to be. He certainly played a role in the development of
effective monoplanes, popularized both dirigible flight and helped the
development of heavier-than-air craft. But celebrate him for what he did,
not for what you WISH he did. It is very tiresome to see people champion
their favorite cause at the expense of the Wrights.
[snip to end]
-- Ronn! :)
