History rewritten – Wright brothers didnt fly first?

Slightly yes, but it is being mentioned as a development of the Curtiss engine, not the RR Condor. Rolls had been making 60 degree V engines for some time before Curtiss and while there may have been developments that found their way into Rolls’s designs, to say all were direct copies of the D-12 is a big leap and the Griffon was definitely NOT. You could argue that Curtiss may have influenced RR but RR were making V-12s before Curtiss. Chicken and Egg?

But Melv darling.
Wasn’t the Griffon at the end of a slightly different path of evolution than the Merlin..?

… then rebuilding it as, variously, the Rolls-Royce Kestrel, Griffon and Merlin.”

Well, the Griffon grew out of the Condor that was in production before the Curtis. The first Condors were run in 1918, several years before the D-12. It is quite possible that Rolls Royce bought one to investigate but slavishly copying?

Curtiss did later go on to design some significant advanced water cooled “V” engines…

According to Paul Kennedy’s interesting new book “Engineers of Victory,” one of them was the source of the Merlin.

“The American-designed Curtiss V-12 engine was way ahead of its competitors at the time,and Royce and his team had no qualms about buying one in the United States, shipping it over, stripping it down for analysis and then rebuilding it as, variously, the Rolls-Royce Kestrel, Griffon and Merlin.”

First time I’ve heard this, and I’m not sure I believe it. But then Kennedy is a Brit…

I might start a separate thread, see if I can get a broad spectrum of opinions.

NEEMA,

That’s what we all keep telling a friend, who insists on collecting (and flying) examples of types powered by the OX-5. It doesn’t seem to deter him, though! He did buy one of those new-fangled round-engined aeroplanes last year, but I think he got confused when he couldn’t find anywhere to pour the glycol in, so he’s since sold it on. 🙂

Whilst there is a lot of truth in your claim, I’d argue that the OX-5 was a very successful engine. It might not have been the most advanced or reliable, but numerous examples were still giving service into the 1930s.

Thanks for the comment Mike. Regarding the OX-5 , as you know, it was mainly used in some verions of the “Jenny” and D.H. 6., neither of which were front-line types of course. Curtiss did later go on to design some significant advanced water cooled “V” engines; however, if I may quote Bill Gunston from his “World Aero Engines Encyclopedia” 🙂
“The OX-5 suffered from many unnecessary faults, was always unreliable and when made by numerous contractors in vast quantities in World War 1 suffered from appaling quality control”
It was basically forced into production as part of the industrial effort to keep engine deliveries up with that of airframes.

To me, the main negative about catapult takeoffs was that it meant the flying machine really wasn’t an “airplane”: it couldn’t go anywhere other than back to its point of takeoff, otherwise the catapult would have to have been disassembled and transported to the landing-out point.

I think it was Bleriot who first put wheels rather than skids on an airplane, thus making possible cross-countries…like from France to England.

15 years after the Wrights alleged “achievement” there was not one single significant successful American production ………aero engine in existence.

Whilst there is a lot of truth in your claim, I’d argue that the OX-5 was a very successful engine. It might not have been the most advanced or reliable, but numerous examples were still giving service into the 1930s.

Whether or not the Wrights (somewhat dubious) initial claims are accepted and despite frenetic American lobbying post 1949 ( See “History By Contract “) one has to look at the reality of what was actually achieved.
Five years later, on visiting Europe, the Wrights were getting airborne only by using a primitive falling weight catapult, whilst more sophisticated European aircraft were demonstrating unassisted take-off as a matter of course .
Whilst a European production aircraft industry developed in the early years of the century,there was little or no commensurate progress in the USA by the Wrights, or, indeed others.
15 years after the Wrights alleged “achievement” there was not one single significant successful American production combat aircraft or indeed aero engine in existence.
The accepted tractor engined, fully controllable biplane is epitomised by the British B.E.2. recognised by serious technical authorities as the prototype stable, fully controllable aircraft and copied in form up to the present day. The tractor monoplane by Bleriot ( amongst others in Europe) – is again recogniseable today in its descendants word-wide. . Nothing coming out of the Wrights was of any real long term significance or impact..
American Pilots in (late – of course) W.W.1 flew predominately French SPADs and Nieuports or British Sopwiths, powered by British and French engines. The Liberty engine saga underlining the American lack of any aeronautical engineering prowess. Even the “Tommy Morse” was designed by a Sopwith team.
Indeed it took until the 1930’s for American Civil Aviation to start moving ahead ( which it did spectacularly ), and yet another decade for any really useful military types types to emerge- and only then following lessons learned the hard way over Europe.

Supposedly, Stepwilk posted something here after my previous post, but his post isn’t appearing?

{edit: OK, now that I posted this, the second page appears with Stepwilk’s post. Strange.}

they have Americans being toppled as the 1st by a German

He wasn’t “a German,” he was a man from Connecticut. There were no Americans involved, other than Native Americans, none of whom have put forward a claim to powered, controlled flight.

That indicates that the vast majority of the “evidence” is newspaper accounts – most of which were second-hand at best – or personal affirmations from his friends – also neither evidence nor reliable.

and the Wrights?

Complete documentation of the R&D process, including surviving smaller unmanned versions, as well as photographs, etc.

Records of their experiments, including the preliminary glider flights as well as the first manned flights.

As well, surviving slightly-improved models, flights in public, follow-on development versions and production aircraft, and so on.

All of which, save for some iffy early documents as to small-scale experimental versions, is lacking from the Whitehead claim.

Seems a welsh carpenter built a powered aircraft and flew in 1896

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8539807.stm

That would be William the Pilot then – inventor of the world’s first stealth plane, so stealthy that no one witnessed it. 😀

Welsh first powered flight claim

Seems a welsh carpenter built a powered aircraft and flew in 1896

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8539807.stm

That indicates that the vast majority of the “evidence” is newspaper accounts – most of which were second-hand at best – or personal affirmations from his friends – also neither evidence nor reliable.

and the Wrights?

Have any of you FULLY read John Browns research or Jane’s editorial ?

http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065976994

or just the comments in this thread ? it would seem just the later !

Over on WiX were I first saw it reported,there are no comments like on here, there they have Americans being toppled as the 1st by a German, so you would think they would have good cause to just dismiss it offhand like on here, but they haven’t.

Yes, I read the Jane’s link you supplied.

That indicates that the vast majority of the “evidence” is newspaper accounts – most of which were second-hand at best – or personal affirmations from his friends – also neither evidence nor reliable.

Newspaper reports can be completely fabricated, and still end up being published nationwide… as shown by this incident 2 years before Whitehead’s “flights”.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_great_wall_of_china_hoax

Have any of you FULLY read John Browns research or Jane’s editorial ?

I am not clear on whether you are a believer or not.

Ian MacKersey’s biography of ‘The Wright Brothers’ is an excellent read and one that incorporates pretty much all of the names and ideas mentioned above.

He firmly sides with the brothers being the first to fly, but it was rather interesting hearing how others almost stole the crown.

I definitely recommend reading it.

Didn’t the Wright Bros patent essentially cover all means of controlling an A/C, which lead to the dispute with Curtis?

Isn’t the PPL rating for a twin A/C because direction can be controlled by the engines?

Have any of you FULLY read John Browns research or Jane’s editorial ?

http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065976994

or just the comments in this thread ? it would seem just the later !

Over on WiX were I first saw it reported,there are no comments like on here, there they have Americans being toppled as the 1st by a German, so you would think they would have good cause to just dismiss it offhand like on here, but they haven’t.