true, that would make a leaf the 1st airplane 🍃

@@Eduardo_Espinoza se conseguir colocar uma pessoa em cima e voar pode sim.sua irônia e tão burra .

Exactly! Catapult is for throwing not flying.

@@LUCAS_LIMA_____007 desde quando avião precisa ter pessoa? existe aviões que voam sozinho sem motor,como aqueles millitares.

@Jean Michel Santos é,mais continua avião

it was wright brothers lol

​@@fire15aidenspencer72we brazilians we don't need a freaking cataput

​@@ragnaroktheguywithcomputerhead👏👏👏🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷

with, a Catapult until shit flies 😂​@@fire15aidenspencer72

​​@@fire15aidenspencer72 nuh uh, the wright brothers invented the first angry birds

Sim kkkkkk

Kkkkkkk

Cry

Your comment works when you are preaching to the crowd or cheer leading. In English: The one of the Write ñ brothers flew in the video because they forgot the catapult. I am not very good at translating slang and idioms. Can someone correct my errors and make sense of the joke. There was no catapult shown in either the video of the Centennial flight or photographed in the historic flight in 1903. They didn't forget it because they didn't build it until August, 1904 to compensate for the lack of wind in Dayton, OH. The flyer requires the assistance of about 12 mph of head wind in addition to the 12 hp motor to take off. On 17 December 2003, maximum wind was 4 mph. No one in the know expected the Flyer to fly in these conditions. The Wright's would usually not even try unless the conditions were right. They did experience such conditions on 14 Dec. 1903. Wilbur decided to answer one of his curiosities. Could the flyer take off from a hill in windless conditions. Could it glide without the assistance of the wind but with the assistance of gravity. The hill helped but not that much. With an extra 250 lbs. the flyer was not much of a glider. History of flight. Some of the early pioneers www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Century_Before/Airmen_&_Chauffers/Airmen_&_Chauffers.htm

@@stevebett4947 what fuck Look how much you wrote

\sem ventos fortes , ou auxilio de impulsão externa , os estadunidenses não voavam nem por milagre , isso só não vê quem quer ser cego por conveniência .

@@osvaldotrigueiro3884 Rogerio Gonçalves 3 years ago Not to mention that Santos Dumont's legacy contributed to the development of the plane in Europe, which has always been at the forefront of aviation until World War II. SB: Neither Wright nor Santos Dumont were at the forefront of aviation after 1910. Wright won the Michelin prize in 1908. Neither competed for the cross channel prize in 1909. Orville contracted with 3 companies to build the Wright Flyer B. One of these flew the channel after Bleriot. The Wright Flyer pilot had to be content with being the first to cross the channel twice. Another, the Vin Fiz, was the first to fly across the US. I have never seen a list of Dumont's contributions. He was the premier aviator until 1908 and an inspiration to other early aviators. But what did the other aeronautical pioneers copy from the 14bis? Osvaldo Trigueiro 2 years ago OT wrote: Without strong winds, or aid from outside impulsion, the Americans did not fly even by miracle, that just does not see who wants to be blind for convenience. SB: Please correct may attempted translation of your comment in Portuguese. They did need a strong 10-25 mph headwind and a wooden rail. The only impulse was was a 12 hp motor driving 2 props. Some good luck but no miracles may have been needed. SB: They needed strong winds which were not available on Dec. 17, 2003. In the test flight on Nov. 20, 2003 they were available. And the exact replica of the 1903 Flyer flew over 400 ft. The catapult was not used until Aug. 1904 and was not used for the failed Centennial flight or the successful test flights.

Ele disponibilizou todo seu projeto em revistas e algo do tipo ... o que realmente fez com que aviação pudesse evoluir

​@@Produto_Ideal Dumont's flight was public and well publicized. It was not tied to a particular date which means that no flights were attempted if the conditions were not favorable. The Demoiselle 19 was described in detail in Popular Mechanics. I am not aware of any similar plans for the 14-bis being published. The Wright Brothers flyer was described in the 1906 patent and in the articles by Chanute. The early descriptions were sufficient for others to build a non-flying replica. They couldn't figure out wing warping until 1908.

@@stevebett4947 Correction: The test flights of the exact replicas flew about 115 ft. (not 400) The original 1903 flight was 120 ft. in 12 sec. The times and distances are not at all impressive. For the Wright's it was just a proof of concept prototype. No catapult was used in 1903 so they were not used in the Centennial or in the two test flights on days when there was a head wind. The Centennial flight was supposed to be exactly 100 years after the Dec. 17, 1903 flights between 10 am and noon. They failed to duplicate the wind conditions.

Nope

If you qualify what you mean by first you may have an argument. The 14-bis was the first to hop 25 and 100 meters. in compliance with the 1905 French FAI rules or requirements for a record. Since it was difficult to measure distance when there was no pre-established staring line or finish line, they proved it by flying 50% over the required distance. The claimed 100 m and 220 m distances are not certain or incontestable. The 25 m and 100 m distances are incontestable. The Wright Flyer was the fist to hop 120 ft. (40 m) and 700 ft. The plausibility of the 120 ft. flight as confirmed by the successful test flights of the exact replica of the 1903 Wright Flyer. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pZedpsak1dKRhok.html Santos Dumont admitted that the 14-bis was not a practical airplane and was not the best design for competing for the next Deutsch prize for making a complete loop. The Wrights' also admitted that a plane that flew less than 600 ft. or at an altitude or less than 100 ft. was not a practical airplane. It took them until 1905 to achieve these performance standards. Santos Dumont was never able to improve on the 14 -bis. In 8 months, the three kite winged prototypes were in the air less than 3 min. This is something short of the requirement for a practical airplane. The Wrights qualify their claim. They say that it was the first to fly with 3 axis control.

@@felixbeutin9530 yep

@@stevebett4947 Ok go cry.

@@arthurlunar7835 " wrote: "go cry" I may be repeating myself. SB: Arthur, did you expect the flyer to fly when the wind was less than 5 mph. The only thing the failure to take off on 17Dec2003 proved was that the Flyer cannot fly without a strong wind. The 14 -BIS would not fly under these rainy conditions either because it requires a dry flat hard surface for a runway. The 14-bis does not need wind with a powerful engine producing close to 50 hp. It does need a suitable runway to accelerate to take off speed over the cambered (air foil) surfaces. Santos Dumont usually needed about 200 ft. to accelerate to take off speed. Alan Calassa, with his improved 14--Bis, only needed about 20 ft. There is another video of the Centennial Flight that shows spectators about 50 ft. in front ot the Flyer. Since no one who was aware of the flyer's performance capability expected it to get off the ground, 50 ft. was more than enough room. No one in the know expected it to fly. The Wrights would not have tried to make a flight under these low wind conditions. They would have just waited as the did in December of 1903, for conditions to improve. The were extremely lucky, 17 Dec 1903 not only had gale force winds but also extremely high barometric pressure. As the NASA people stated, Nature has to cooperate for the Flyer to hop over 100 ft. It did. REF: From @ Warp: On November 20, 2003, Dr. Kevin Kochersberger piloted the 1903 Wright Experience Replica Flyer. With 15-18 mph winds he flew a distance of nearly 100 feet. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pZedpsak1dKRhok.html Invited to discuss: @Sapeca48 @iChiphead @Sam Sabbath, @Eduardo Brandao, @PedroHBR13, @Le meilleur pour la France 1 year ago, @Wade French, @Yvea Elija, @Jose Luis P. C. Rocha, @Promachos Athena "Every international organization recognizes the Wright brothers as the first." @TwoMint, @Eduardo Brandão

Every region probably has their father of aviation. In Geogia it was Ben Epps (circa 1910 ). Epps built and flew his own plane. Santos-Dumont is certainly the father of aviation in Brazil. Worldwide, it is usually Sir George Cayley (1988-1937) who is given this title. "The dream of manned flight dates back to the ancient world, but a true understanding of aerodynamic principles and practical aircraft design didn’t arrive until the work of the English polymath George Cayley. In 1799, the man known as the “Father of Aviation” drew up the earliest known plans for an aircraft that used a fixed-wing design with separate mechanisms for lift and thrust. He followed it up with a small model glider in 1804, but his biggest achievement came in 1853, when he built a full-sized glider that successfully took flight near Scarborough, England-supposedly with Sir George’s terrified carriage driver as its passenger. While Cayley died just a year later in 1854, his scientific research into heavier-than-air flight would later serve as the theoretical backbone for many early aircraft designs. Among other things, he was the first to identify the importance of streamlining, cambered wings and pilot-controlled rudders and elevators-all innovations that the Wright Brothers would later incorporate into their own planes."

@@stevebett4947 Thanks, for your great research,sir.

@@msa8679 Thanks for the comment. I am trying to encourage everyone in this conversation to make use of the available internet resources. Too many are simply repeating what they learned from elementary school textbooks. US textbooks rarely mention the work of other early aviation pioneers.

@@stevebett4947 Sure

@@stevebett4947 ... and Dumont certainly deserves so much more than a simple footnote en American books. His life is so much more interesting than the Wright's - wether they really flew that thing or not. In 2003 it failed miserably. But the copy of the 14-bis took off without problem in 2006. Please check on KZfaq the documentary Wings of Madness.

ISSO MESMO

Dessa é impossível descordar, mas quem disse primeiro foi o woody 😎👍

In English: "That's not flying, that's falling in style" - Buzz Lightyear, 1995 I guess one could call gliding, falling with style. Or perhaps it is 3 axis control that enables the glider to fall in style. With a good headwind, the glider could sustain a type of flight with a member of the ground crew at each wing tip. Alternatively, one member of the ground crew could hold onto a tether. It was like flying a kite. If the fingers or tether was released, the glider would tumble backwards. There falling down the hill is more complicated than it might seem. The 8 to 16 hp 200 lb engine produced enough thrust to compensate for a tether.

In English: "That's not flying, that's falling in style" - Buzz Lightyear, 1995 I guess one could call gliding, falling with style. Or perhaps it is 3 axis control that enables the glider to fall in style. With a good headwind, the glider could sustain a type of flight with a member of the ground crew at each wing tip. Alternatively, one member of the ground crew could hold onto a tether. It was like flying a kite. If the fingers or tether was released, the glider would tumble backwards. There falling down the hill is more complicated than it might seem. The 8 to 16 hp 200 lb engine produced enough thrust to compensate for a tether.

Catapulta ou ventos fortes e terreno acidentado , tipo descia ou barranco , decolar esta máquina não decola nem com reza brava , no ano de 1907 eles foram a França , ainda não tinham tido a ideia da catapulta , pois bem , em terreno plano e sem ventania , simplesmente não saíram do chão , só em 1908 com a famosa catapulta foram lançados no espaço , qualquer coisa catapultada voa até uma vaca , o problema deles é uma arrogância crônica, portanto incurável

You're wrong, the Whright Brothers original plane was stable and could control it's moviment in the air, but in the other way the Santos Dumont original plane, obviously not that in the video, was unstable and could fly just a few meters up from the ground. (Você está errado, o avião original dos Irmãos Wright era estável e podia controlar seus movimentos no ar, mas por outro lado o avião de Santos Dumont, obviamente não o do vídeo, era instável e conseguia voar apenas alguns metros acima do chão

Osvaldo Trigueiro OT: wrote" " (without a catapult) this machine (Wright Flyer) does not take off. In the year 1907 they went to France, still had not had the idea of ​​the catapult..." SB: The exact replica of the 1903 Wright Flyer I does take off. Check out the video. Replica flies 100 ft. in 15 mph wind on 20 Nov 2003 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pZedpsak1dKRhok.html - After obtaining the financing they demanded, the Wrights went to Europe in 1907. - They had used the CATAPULT since 1904. It was usually required to deal with the light winds in Ohio. The linear catapult added the equivalent of 6 mph of take-off speed making it possible to take off in a 10 mph headwind. SB The 3 Wright siblings went to Europe in 1907. The main purpose of the trip was to set up the companies that were to manufacture the Wright Flyer Model A in Europe. The Wrights' had received their $15,000 minimum investment for a proof but the French financiers (Weiner, Archdeacon, Deutsch, ...) were more interested in making money by selling replicas than having specific objectives beyond those that had been previously claimed. Also in 1907, one of the 3 machines they had built in 1906 was shipped to France. Wilbur Wright went to France in 1908 but was unable to demonstrate the Wright Flyer Model A until mid year because it was tied up in Customs. The Model A had been damaged by those doing the inspection. The repair took 6 weeks. On the first flight test, the 1906 Dayton 28-30 hp engine threw a rod and had to be replaced. Wilbur had received the shipment of 7 of the projected 50 French replicas of the 1906 Wright upright 4 engine. Wilbur used one of these engines that had been built under license to replace the broken engine. Bariquand & Marre (one of 3 licensed engine builders) had made some minor changes to the 1906 Wright upright 4 which Wilbur did not like but it was not a deal breaker. The linear catapult was not available until mid 1904.. The one used in 1908 used a 1000 lb weight. According to the French 1905 FAI standards, a catapult could not be used to set an official record. It was used in 1909 at the Rheims Grande Demaine d'Aviation because these records were set under British standards. The Wright Flyer Model A had enough power to take off on its skids so it was not used for official French records in 1908.. It would have been more efficient to take off on a longer track but that option was never used. No catapult but a hill was used in Dec 14. 1903. The flights on Dec. 17 did not use a hill or a catapult. It did use a 60 foot wooden monorail. It was assisted by a 24+ mph headwind, high air density, and a ground crew at the wingtips. @SanPol, @j b, @Jindle Spong, @Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles @Açúcar Chocolate, @MrBelo, @majorbett,

YK This catapult story is folklore. Flyer never used catapults. There were no catapults in the failure video and none used in the historical 1903 flights. However, they were frequently used by the Wrights and almost always used in France in the 1908 demonstrations and for Wilbur's 77 mile flight that won the Michelin prize for the longest flight in 1908.. The earlier record was less than 1 mile.

The original Wright Flyer had 3 axis control but required a skilled pilot. I would not call it stable. Santo Dumont goal was to win the prize and this did not require flying more than a meter from the ground or making turns.

Canards, its called canards

Ednaldo Pereira humilhando gringo kakakaka

Se Ednaldo Pereira diz, é verdade.

@@brksmiguel nem lembrava desse comentário KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

@@augustoalves9250 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

I think I could fly the ultra-stable 14-bis. I don't think I could keep the unstable Wright Flyer in the air. I have flown ultra-lights not unlike the Demoiselle. They are also quite stable. Unstable designs should excel in aerobatics but you can never relax and take your hands off the controls. The RC models of the Wright Flyer are remarkable. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eMh7pMuCmZi0l2Q.html

@@stevebett4947 remember this is just my own opinion, many germans disagree and think that Gustavo and Wright was the first.

@@ordemeprogresso727 Between 1904 and 1908, there were many who believed that their alleged progress in aviation was a lie or exaggeration. There were virtually no non-believers after the demonstration at LeMans in France in mid 1908. In January 1908, Furman won a Deutche-Archdeacon prize for the first plane to fly in a circle. The Wrights had been doing this since 1904 but not in front of an expert witness from the FAI. Why didn't the Wrights release photos of the first flight in 1903 or early 1904? There was a reason that the photo of the first flight was not released earlier. I think they timed it about right. The photo would have been disputed in 1903-4. It also mmight provide too much info. to their competitors. In a press release written by the Wrights in Jan. 1904, they said they would release the photographs of the 1st flight at the appropriate time. Perhaps they thought that competitors could figure out wing warping from the photos. They could have released them in 1907 but they waited until 1908 after they had demonstrated their mastery of the air. This might have been the ideal time to release them. Had they released them in 1904, authenticity

@@Arquiteto-em-Sao-Paulo I am not sure what you are saying. Does THEY refer to Brazilian critics?

@@majorbett ...or they just had lies. Their patent was completed in 1906 and it was a glider, nothing more. The American army wanted to buy their plane and they just didn't show it, because they had nothing to show. To say all the time that it was a secret seems to me a good convenience instead of reality.

@@stevebett4947 You'd travel in a glider? No? Ok

@@Jonathan-qc3wk Not sure I understand what you are asking. I have flown ultralights which can glide. I have never flown a high performance glider. I would love to give it a try.

Were either Santos Dumont or the Wright brothers ahead of their time in 1908? @Promachos Athena: "Every international organization recognizes the Wright brothers as the first." SB: Yes, but not by much. After Wilbur's 1908 demonstrations, many caught up. The secret to controlled flight and wing warping was out of the bag. The Wright's sold 50 European built Wright Flyer Model B's the next couple of years. Santos Dumont sold 10 assembled Demoiselles and an unknown number of home built craft. An abbreviated full design was published in Popular Mechanics in the US in 1912?. The Wright's charged $25,000 For the 2 place Wright Model A . The companies that sold the Demoiselle 20 charged about $8,000 for the airframe. Engines were sold separately for around $8,ooo. By 1911, more Flyers were sold than any other design. Wright did not directly compete in any sponsored events but they did help their buyers who did. The Aviation Week program had over 3 Wright Model A's and one V-8 powered Model R. The first leg of the speed contest was won by ... but he crashed the plane performing stunts for the spectators. and became the first aviation fatality. After winning the channel crossing contest, Blériot sold close to 1000 before WWI. The Wrights never had a competitive design after 1912. I think this showed a reluctance to embrace ideas from outside of their company.Brady Skye 39.1K subscribers Blériot 11 (or XI) Cross channel took 36 min. to fly 22 miles. URL: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jaqKa5qKybiqYX0.html The Blériot Type XI was initially powered by a REP engine but it was overheating, leading Blériot to get in touch with Alessandro Anzani, who had developed a successful motorcycle engine and had subsequently entered the aero-engine market. Importantly, Anzani was associated with Lucien Chauvière, who had designed a sophisticated laminated walnut propeller. The combination of a reliable engine and an efficient propeller would contribute greatly to the success of the Type XI. In July of 1909, 33 year old Louie Blériot was head-to-head against fellow French Aviator Hubert Latham to make a mark in history and earn a £1000 prize. @Audiophile 102 commented: Wilbur Wright in his model A flyer was far superior to the Bleriot type XI, but Wilbur dismissed the flight as a stunt. All of which makes Louie Bleriot a very daring young man in a marginal flying machine. SB: The Model A Flyer was superior to the Bleriot 11 in some areas. However, the Model 11 was much cheaper to produce. The Model 11 outsold the Wright Model A. It could be sold for $8,000. The Wright's Model A was always $25,000. Invited to discuss: @Sapeca48 5 mo @iChiphead @Sam Sabbath, @Eduardo Brandao, @PedroHBR13, @Le meilleur pour la France 1 year ago, @Wade French,@Yvea Elija, @Jose Luis P. C. Rocha, @TwoMint, @Eduardo Brandão

@@stevebett4947 Didn't the brothers die just prior to ww1

@@thebigsad5402 No. I met Orville in 1947. He died in 1948 (cardiac arrest). I was 8 years old and remember it only because it was a big deal for my mother. Wilbur died in 1912 before WWI. So you were half right.

Have you ever heard about fighter planes in an aircraft carrier?

Those use catapults to take off on tiny runways, they work FINE on longer runways Have you ever heard of getting information before saying shit?

@Roberto ximangobom call me when you learn to speak PROPER english. Moron.

@@davidjunior7404 but these planes can fly without catapult.

@@pedrosabino8751 So could the Flyer. It would only require a longer runway, hard thing to find at that time.

Perhaps if it had an airfoil shape. :-) I think you are confusing a catapult with a trebuchet. A derrick catapult only supplies forward motion. An airfoil wing is required to provide lift.

That was a kind reference to the first man that flew an airplane. Santos Dumont. Everyone that believed Santos Dumont flew an airplane first is sure about the claims. It was public, as all his tests were. No one can be sure about any airplane flight before him. Any discussion goes forever about this subject because it mixes fact with faith. People who believe somebody flew an airplane before Santos Dumont flew the 14-bis has faith on that, because it is impossible to be sure. ( Faith definition matches with the above statement ).

@@sanpol4399 SB: The statement that "no one can be sure about the flight of any airplane flight before Santos Dumont" does not meet the FAI standards for incontestable certainty. Logically, it is quite different from the Henrique Lins de Barros claim with respect to Santos Dumont. No one before 1906, a French engine builder. If we accept the FAI definitions for evidence it is possible to say that Santos Dumont's flight in the 14 bis was the first to meet those standards. As the rules and regulations for the 100 m. distance flight have yet to be located, there is some uncertainty about how to reference them. It appears that film evidence and spectators other than the official witnesses were not required. It was not the competitors job to make sure the flight was filmed or that the public witnesses were present. The flight took place at dusk which made it difficult if not impossible for a 1906 hand cranked camera to record anything due to insufficient light. The flight took place at dusk to minimize the number of public spectators who were in harms way. There were short flights during the day which may have been just over the head of the spectators as the post cards and press releases suggest. I disagree with SanPal: Those who oppose the claim as stated above are not mixing fact with faith or editorial comments more than those who accept it. Neither position can be said to satisfy the high standards of evidence as set by the FAI. All that you can say for sure is that the 1906 flight was the first in aviation history to follow the bizzare rules set up by the FAI in 1905-6. That achievement does not mean that there was not historical evidence for flights before 1906. Historical evidence is never beyond doubt or absolutely certain; but it might beyond reasonable doubt. It stands until someone comes up with a better story. The FAI still certifies records but they no longer use the 1906 rules. The still require witnesses but the witnesses do not have to be members of the French Aero Club. A record does not have to be set in a formal competition. The record stands only until someone beats it.

@@stevebett4947 I still believe this subject mixes fact with faith. For example, I believe in physics and it's rules and I do not believe Flyer 1 could fly with 340,2 kg and only 12 hp . There is no prof it could and the Wind tunnel test made at NASA tells it could not , but despite of that, you still believe Flyer 1 could fly sustained.

@@sanpol4399 You didn't provide any clues as to what comment you were responding to. I am guessing it was the one below. It appears that you are just repeating past questions and positions without attempting to address mine. SP: I still believe this subject mixes fact with faith. SB: It would be more helpful if you would critique my answer(s) You seem to believe in science but not the scientific method. Religious faith is belief in the unknowable and in stories and explanations that cannot be questioned. They are consistent with all states of affairs. They are not falsifiable. SP: I do not believe Flyer 1 could fly with 340,2 kg and only 12 hp . SB: If this is more than the faith of a true believer. You should be able to state what would enable you to accept historical evidence. I am not going to challenge physics but to say that a particular power to weight ratio is not possible is not physics. It is an interpretation or generalization that goes beyond the so called laws of physics. What needs to be explained is how an exact replica could hop over 100 ft. if it was overweight and underpowered. The answer is that the Wright flyer I and II required the assistance of a strong headwind. Without the headwind (even with the assistance of a catapult) the early Wright Flyers are not going to take off. On Dec. 14, 1903 when there was less than a 5 mph wind, The WB tried to see if the hill or incline would help. The Flyer flew about 6 ft. Some want to call this the first flight. The Wrights have usually tried to obscure the early test fight. I can think of 2 reasons they might want to downplay this event. SP: The WF was incapable of sustained flight. SB: You know my definition of sustained flight. Circular flight at altitude. What is your definition? SP: There is no prof it could and the Wind tunnel test made at NASA tells it could not SB: There is no incontestable proof that the original flyer could fly. On this we agree. What needs to be explained with the first NASA study that used a prop from a replica of a replica is where did that defective prop come from. There is no evidence that it came from the original Wright Flyer. SP: you still believe Flyer 1 could fly sustained. SB: I think you have a technical definition of "sustained. " There is a dictionary definition and several technical definitions for the term. What one are you using? EARLIER COMMENTS @San Pol SB: The statement that "no one can be sure about the flight of any airplane flight before Santos Dumont" does not meet the FAI standards for incontestable certainty. Logically, it is quite different from the Henrique Lins de Barros claim with respect to Santos Dumont. If we accept the FAI definitions for evidence it is possible to say that Santos Dumont's flight in the 14 bis was the first to meet those standards. As the rules and regulations for the 100 m. distance flight have yet to be located, there is some uncertainty about how to reference them. It appears that film evidence and spectators other than the official witnesses were not required. It was not the competitors job to make sure the flight was filmed or that the public witnesses were present. The flight took place at dusk which made it difficult if not impossible for a 1906 hand cranked camera to record anything due to insufficient light. The flight took place at dusk to minimize the number of public spectators who were in harms way. There were short flights during the day which may have been just over the head of the spectators as the post cards and press releases suggest. I disagree with SanPal: Those who oppose the claim as stated above are not mixing fact with faith or editorial comments more than those who accept it. Neither position can be said to satisfy the high standards of evidence as set by the FAI. All that you can say for sure is that the 1906 flight was the first in aviation history to follow the bizzare rules set up by the FAI in 1905-6. That achievement does not mean that there was not historical evidence for flights before 1906. Historical evidence is never beyond doubt or absolutely certain; but it might beyond reasonable doubt. It stands until someone comes up with a better story or a story more consistent with recent revelations.. The FAI still certifies records but they no longer use the 1906 rules. The still require witnesses but the witnesses do not have to be members of the French Aero Club. A record does not have to be set in a formal competition. The FAI record now stands only until someone beats it.

@@sanpol4399 I have been trying to find a better sub 200 lb. engine that the Wright's could have used. If we go to 1908, there are lots of options. In 1902, the only one I have found is the Manly Langley rotary used on the Langley Aerodrome. I have also located the prop that Langley used. You can find it at: www.si.edu/spotlight/propulsion?page=1&=true I think I mentioned that the Wrights never had a way to test their props in a wind tunnel. Their carved props were guesses and evidently they made quite a few that didn't work. They could test static thrust with their spring scale. The one they used in 1903 passed the test at 330 rpm. The thrust was also reported but I forget where. (read their notes at ....) The inefficiency noted by the first NASA test was above this RPM. Drag increased as RPM was increased. Do they indicate that the claimed thrust could have been achieved at 320 RPM? Did you read my comment that included my estimate of what the actual thrust might have been? The efficiency and the thrust were lower than reported by some pro-Wright writers. I was interested in finding more about the highly efficient prop that Olmstead patented in 1989. There is a picture of it at www.si.edu/spotlight/propulsion?page=1&=true It is easy to spot because the blade gets narrower toward the tip. It was used in 1909 on flying boats. The Smithsonian found one that had been discarded because it cracked in a high RPM test. Dr. Olmstead was also an airplane builder but did not have investors. His company went bankrupt in 1910. Someone should build an RC model of his streamlined monocoque .... airplane. It was supposed to fly faster than 100 mph in the early 1900's airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/olmsted-model-brp-pusher-propeller-fixed-pitch-two-blade-wood/nasm_A19690143000 Rather than strengthen the propeller yet again, the Wrights decided instead to design propellers that would balance the forces to retain the proper pitch. ... The Wrights carved a set of bent-end propellers for the 1905 Flyer and found that they produced 210 pounds of thrust (compared to the 120-130 pounds ... www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Facts/Engines_&_Props/1903_Props.htm

The Wright's documented their failures. The explanation for the failure in the Centennial video is not explained. Henrique Lins de Barros (3) argued that the Wright Flyer could not fly without assistance from the wind. It would not fly when the wind was less than 4 mph. On 17 Dec. 2003 the wind was less than 4 mph. Thus the failure was not a miserable failure it was a predictable failure. On 17 December 1903, the windspeed at Kill Devil's hill was 20-27 mph. Most aviation pioneers would not consider this to be good flying conditions. The Wright's liked high winds because they thought they had learned to handle high winds and variable winds because they had wing warping for lateral control. This was still true in 1909 when Wilbur agreed to compete with Glenn Curtis. The first day of the competition Curtis refused to fly because the winds were too high. His June Bug had ailerons but he was still reluctant to fly in high winds. Wilbur welcomed the high winds and took off on schedule, he flew around the Statue of Liberty and a few miles down the Hudson as his contract required. He did not attempt to set a distance record because he didn't have to according to his contract. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers_flights_of_1909 Santos Dumont also had some failures during the 3 month development of the 14-bis. The photo of the 14-bis with its nose in the air is one failure. This attitude broke the prop. There was according to two accounts a failure at the end of his historic 100 m. flight which should have been enough to disqualify him. According to the D-Archdeacon contest rules, the landing must be perfect. The 14-bis broke its landing gear but landed safely - Santos-Dumont was not injured. He also had a catastrophic failure about a week or so after his historic flights that almost put an end to the development of this design (until recently when a replica was built). He did build a prototypes 15 and 16 but they were not significant improvements of the original design. Both crashed on their maiden flights. In 1907, Dumont started work on his Demoiselle which eventually included wing warping to supply 3 axis control. Links: Gordon Bennet Cup sponsored by the Paris & NY herald Grande Semaine d'aviation 1909 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mNF_h7if3JzOeqM.html Curtis 40 mph. Wright 47 Bleriot 12, 60 hp. engine. 45 mph. closed course. 46 mph Curtis. URL: NASM.SI.edu Greg's airplanes and automobiles WB did invent the airplane kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e9GghKR4ts_aZIU.html Propeller basics (Santos Dumont No. 2) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ic2fg7OYndW6pGw.html Join the discussion: @SanPol, @j b, @Jindle Spong, @Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles @Açúcar Chocolate, @MrBelo, @majorbett, @rjn bonif, @pipe cigar, @danieldbd, @Gilberto Nedel Junior, @No Brainer Languages, @rocknroll, @Selma Nedel, @harpiasonhadora sonhadora, @Marco Papa, @Anubis, @Ma-At, @majorbett, @Renaldo Borges, @elias lima, Maria Luiza Wiethaeuper

Check out these videos: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g9-jipOnt92zYGw.html Mostly about the experiments at Huffman Prairie.

@@stevebett4947 No plane, even nowadays, with 340,2 and 12 hp can fly. There is no way you can refute the physics of flight.

@@sanpol4399 There is no need to violate the physics of flight. Your calculations may be a little simplistic, however. If you can elaborate, please do. Planes with worse power/weight ratios have flown. The gossamer condor, the first human- powered airplane, weighed 70lbs and flew with around 0.25hp, the most the human pilot could continuously produce by pedaling. Power to weight ratios: Condor: 1 hp. /100 lbs. Flyer I: 1.6 hp. / 100 lbs. Watch the 47 min. video here. It tries to identify what made Dec. 17 a special day in terms of near ideal flight conditions. www.youtube.com/watch? v=EkpQAGQiv4Q&lc=z23mzbmzlqvnfdvu0acdp432uv5sttxeoklsdqiinh1w03c010c.1572087445136305&feature=em-comments Achieving take off lift off may be dependent on a good head wind and air density. Are these factors in your calculations? Other Wright critics consider these to be assists. The 14bis was able to fly unassisted. RC Model Replica of the Flyer III demonstrating wing warping + rudder banked turns. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eMh7pMuCmZi0l2Q.html

@@stevebett4947 A human can produce more than 0.25 hp for a brief period of time. The Condor has a so high lift performance, that after a small climb, it could keep in the air for quite a long distance and a small rate of descend. Even thoug, it is hard to call a plane that can not reproduce the flights frequently when there is small atmospheric variations as a practical airplane. The Flyer had a inefficient design, big induced drag, and no exact copy of it can reproduce the claim about 1903 flight. In your definition of airplane, does it requires that it takes of and fly sustainable using its own power or not?

Esqueceram a catapulta -- They forgot the catapult! Do you mean that Hyde forgot to use a catapult? His goal was to replicate Dec. 17, 1903. The spot for the 2003 Centennial was supposed to be the same one used by the Wrights. They did not use a derrick style catapult because it was not used in 1903. Had they been able to replicate the over 20 mph head winds that were available in 1903, they would have been able to fly about 150 ft. I think the first attempt by Orville, the one in the photo, was only 120 ft.

@@stevebett4947 bologne they forgot the catapult that is why the americans plane didn't flew!

@@penhacates6779 *Forgot the catapult...?) Do you mean that with a catapult they would have been able to take off on Dec. 17, 2003? I think you overestimate the power of the catapult. The catapult substitutes for a long wooden track (or wooden runway) It was essential in Ohio with its light winds. I don't think it could compensate for no wind. The limits of the derrick catapult has been discussed at length. Until the development of the 1906 Taylor-Wright upright 4 (38hp), a good headwind was needed in addition to the (....) push contributed by the derrick catapult. Not sure what statement elicited the baloney comment.. The KZfaq editor is limited. You usually have to repeat what you comment on unless you want to be intentionally ambiguous.

Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

@@pamelalima3314 A implicação é que a catapulta perdida teria ajudado. Também implica que foi inventado e disponível. Os Wrights encontraram a solução para os ventos fracos em Ohio 8 meses depois. Eu imagino que eles ainda precisassem de um pouco vento contrário. Os Wrights não teriam feito uma tentativa em Kitty Hawk quando o vento estava abaixo de 15 mph. Estava a mais de 20 mph em 17 de dezembro de 1903. Os organizadores do evento tiveram que seguir em frente porque a multidão esperava por isso. Eles podem ter tido uma réplica exata do Wright Flyer, mas não replicaram as condições do vento. Os Wrights adoravam ventos fortes, todos os outros pioneiros odiavam ventos fortes. Em um evento patrocinado em 1910 que colocou Wilbur contra Glen Curtis acabou sendo um dia ventoso em Nova York. O curso foi sobre a água e em torno da Estátua da Liberdade. Wright completou o curso sem problemas. Curtis se recusou a voar. The implication is that the missing catapult would have helped. It also implies that it had been invented and avaiable. The Wrights came up with the solution for the light winds in Ohio 8 months later. I imagine they still needed a little headwind. The Wrights would not have made an attempt at Kitty Hawk when the wind was less than 15 mph. It was over 20 mph on Dec. 17, 1903. The event organizers had to go through the motions because the crowd expected it. They may have had an exact replica of the Wright Flyer but they did not replicate the wind conditions. The Wrights loved high winds every other pioneer hated high winds. In a 1910 sponsored event that pitted Wilbur against Glen Curtis turned out to be a windy day in NYC. The course was over water and around the Statue of Liberty. Wright completed the course with no problems. Curtis refused to fly. He was a non-starter and lost the race.

?

Ninguém na França sabe quem foi Santos Dumont.

Giovanni Guimaraes não fale bobagem!

@@Produto_Ideal Today, Are more people in France familiar with Santos Dumont than in the USA? It is certainly not true that "No one in France knows who Santos Dumont was." Anyone who read French newspaper in the early 1900's certainly knew. Perhaps only 10% know today.

França já era....

@@VaultVenturer Nah, ele morava lá e geral conversava com ele sobre tudo, ainda mais dps q ele criou o Avião.

Have you ever heard of EmBRAer?

Also, the Wright Brothers wanted to milk money from patents and sued all the creative aerial inventors and industries involved with airplanes in the united states, effectively hindering the whole of the American Aircraft industrial technological progress until World War I when the US government forced all companies and parties o share patents and knowledge in the area for military purposes.

Here is a reference www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-debunks-claim-gustave-whitehead-was-first-in-flight/

@MajorLeague If no proof is needed, Whitehead flew before, if proof is needed but the heavier than air could just glide, than Otto Lilienthal flew first. If proof is needed, and a heavier than air should fly by itself, without any external help, than Santos Dumont flew first.

@MajorLeague Then...who you believe flew an airplane first ?

translation: No one who believes in the Wright's flight can explain how their machine could fly with a lousy 340.2 kg and only 12 hp. Nor can they provide a single proof of any flight that proves the date. There is a book on the mathematical explanation. Please check it out and tell me where you find the errors. It is quite detailed and will require some study. Check out corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=following Let us return to the sands of Kitty Hawk and see if the Wright Flyer can get off the ground. The surface area of the Wright Flyer is 512 ft2. If we assume a wind velocity of 25 miles per hour and a ground speed of 7 miles per hour (the ground speed actually achieved on December 17), the velocity relative to the wind becomes 32 miles per hour. The calculations follow: lift: (0.0033) (512) (32)2 (0.515) = 891 pounds weight: Kitty Hawk Flyer: 605 pounds Orville (in suit and tie): 140 pounds Total: 745 pounds drag:(0.0033) (512) (32)2 (0.515) = 94 pounds thrust: 132 pounds Robt. McCullough: Since lift is greater than weight and thrust is greater than drag, flight is possible! Armed with information similar to this, Orville and Wilbur attempted flight. Their success was no great surprise to themselves. As Wilbur later wrote in a letter to Chanute: "One of the most gratifying features of the trials was the fact that all of our calculations were shown to have worked out with absolute exactness … 1903 flyer was readily controllable about all axes but was intrinsically unstable in pitch and role, and it could barely be stabilized by a skilled pilot." Source: Fred Culick, Henry Jex, "Aerodynamics, stability and control of the 1903 Wright Flyer", AIAA Wright Flyer Project - Report WF 84/09-1, Sep. 20, 1984 (see authors.library.caltech.edu/21217/1/CULaiaawfp84.pdf ) SB: I am not sure what you will take as proof. The telegram to the Wright's sister can be documented. You discount this because they could be lies. Although the Wrights thought they had the math right and were confident that they could fly, most people think it was something of a fluke. Nature had to cooperate.

@@stevebett4947 In science we need to be skeptical. You may agree a telegram and a picture showing what could be a short jump can not be used to prove a sustainable flight. Do you really believe that the Flyer 1 could fly sustainable, having 340,2kg and only 12 hp? Do you really believe at the claim the Smithsonian wrote about it ? Of course we need to consider the high end airdynamic shapes in modern planes if we go further in weight power ratio a plane can fly. Even this modern planes, fly at the limit if they do have the same power weight that Flyer had. The flyer, with much more induced drag, parasitic drag, and transmition power loss just could not make it. And that is why no copy can, if no wind and slope to make it possible.

@@sanpol4399 The evidence could be better but we usually have to make decisions on less than perfect evidence. You have weighed the evidence and come to a different conclusion than I have. We need to be skeptical about both conclusions. IMO, It would have been out of character for the Wrights (The Bishop's boys) to lie. It was not out of character for Whitehead. He had been a sailor and was experienced in telling tall tales. At the time, the Wrights considered their flight to have been little more than a proof of concept. They thought it might be newsworthy, but the editor of the Dayton newspaper thought otherwise. They did get some publicity in French publications from Octave Chanute. It is said that Chanute's articles inspired Santos-Dumont to turn his attention to heavier than air flying machines.

@@stevebett4947 This book is full of details and shows how fragile is the evidences that people uses to justify the flights Wright brothers said they did. m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2Fd9ze28znylkmd2lzvy5za1mnofpzzpsd

@@sanpol4399 Thanks for the link.

The Wrights contributions were two fold. 1. They provided the way to add lateral control This enabled later designs to bank and turn. 2. They changed the focus from stability to control under changing wind conditions. It took ten years for other pilots to be as ready as they were to fly in heavy winds or when there were frequency wind shifts. Check out: Hudson River competition, 1912 another iconic photo of the Flyer circling the Statue of Liberty. to be added. Curtis did not risk flying his June bug in the windy condtions that prevailed on the first day of the competition. NASA's eastern wind-tunnel www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2003/03-015.html

@@stevebett4947 What really matters when the question is fly, is make that with own propulsion (no catapult)

@@ArthurConc What really matters is that you get your facts straight. Statements such as yours have to define FLY and PROPULSION Do you mean no catapult or no wooden track? What about needing a headwind over 15 mph? The French FAI requirements include any requirement for headwind except that generated by taxiing to the take off speed.

And that doesn't define first person to fly. Airplane: heavier-than-air machine that can sustain flight under it's own power. Where is the catapult in that definition?

The Wright Brothers would not try to fly when the conditions were as bad as they were on the 100 anniversary. No rational person would try to fly when the wind was less than 4 mph and the air density was low. There were successful test flights of the exact replica when the wind was over 15 mph. The 14 bis with its big V-8 engine could fly in calm winds but Santos Dumont could not take off in sand. He required a hard flat surface. The Wrights were fortunate to fly on a day with both high wind velocity and high air density. The 1903 Flyer required almost perfect conditions to fly any distance. Those conditions were available on December 17, 1903. Invited to discuss: @MrBelo, @majorbett, @rjn bonif, @pipe cigar, @danieldbd, @Gilberto Nedel Junior, @Acucar Chocolate, @No Brainer Languages: References: wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Santos_Dumont/Santos_Dumont.htm While the Demoiselle could be built cheaply at home, if you bought one from a vendor, the cost might be $30,000 without an engine. www.westernexplorers.us/Demoiselle-original-history.pdf On November 20, 2003, Dr. Kevin Kochersberger piloted the 1903 Wright Experience Replica Flyer. With 15-18 mph winds he flew a distance of nearly 100 feet. Replica flies 100 ft. in 15 mph wind on 20 Nov 2003 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pZedpsak1dKRhok.html

@@stevebett4947 "THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN" (The most serious and important American aeronáutic magazine) dated NOVEMBER, 08 1906 emphasize The very great Dumont event of October, 23 1906!!! AND HIGHLIGHTING THAT IT HAS FINALLY BEEN PROVEN BY DUMONT THAT MAN COULD FLY HIGHER THAN AIR AND FIRST TIME.

@@paulyouth8342 I can bring up the cover for the Oct. 23, 1906 issue. static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/76B390A1-770B-4119-858639B0C2EC8EE2.jpg Do you have the URL for the article that ranked the contributions of early aviators?

90% of them believe Henry Ford invented the car so what do they know? And 90% also wrongly believe Albert Einstein invented the atomic bomb when he had absolutely nothing to do with the Manhattan Project. Robert Oppenheimer was the man most responsible. And the "great Edison" was a great thief who took ideas from Tesla, Marconi and others who worked for him or those who failed to find investors for their inventions so they sold the rights to him. His "great invention" was just to finance these inventors and then present them as "his patents". In other cases he just refined or "improved" inventions of others that already worked but weren't practical. See "his" lightbulb for that.

​@@paulallen8109 Is is fairly clear that 30% of Americans are almost know nothings or believe in misinformation and conspiracies. Do you have any evidence supporting your 90% figure. That would be very unlikely. Most believe that Einstein had something to do with the atomic bomb ... and he did. Association does not necessarily mean having something to do with its invention. "Who invented what" is usually surrounded by controversy. Henry Ford had something to do with the auto. It was invented 20 years before the Model T in 1908. So what did Henry Ford do? He invented the first automobile for the masses. German inventor Karl Benz patented his Benz Patent-Motorwagen in 1886. What the encyclopedia says: Henry Ford combined interchangeable parts with subdivided labor and fluid movement of materials to create his moving assembly line in 1913. The resulting productivity gains and price cuts led manufacturers of every type to adopt Ford's innovative production methods. Your comment is 9 months old. I hope you have subscribed and have a chance to support your claim.

@@majorbett 1 Could The Flyer fly without CATAPULT, STRONG WINDS AND A HILL??? 2 When did the Wrights fly their FIRST PUBLIC RECORDED FLIGHT???? *Which reliable institutions, journalists, government.... were there to certificate Wright Brothers flights???????* 3 WHY YOU WILL NEVER EVER SEE THE FLYER REPLICA FLYING??????

@@rjnbonif3603 ?

Lembro que quando eu era criança e vi a foto do 14-bis pela primeira vez, eu pensei a mesma coisa "Mas que porr# é essa ? o avião voa de ré ?" kkkkkkkkkkk

Translation: The Santos Dumont plane seems to fly aft (backwards or tail first) kkkkk SB: The Wright Flyer also had the pitch control surface in front. The design made it easier to survive the frequent crashes.

Como o 14-bis foi o primeiro avião , os outros é que voam ao contrário, não ele. 😉😀😀👍

@@sanpol4399 wrote: "Since the 14-bis was the first plane, the others fly the other way around, not him." SB: Tthe use of a canard did not look as strange in the early 1900's as it does today.

@@stevebett4947 Sure, but it is just a matter of reference, and here, a matter of reference mixed with sense of humor. 😉

Yeah, the earlier aircrafts that resemble what we know as airplanes were the _Demoiselle_ (Santos Dumont) and the _Blériot XI_ (Louis Blériot), as far as i know.

Fracassados? diga isso pra proposta que eles fizeram ao governo americano em 1905 para produção em massa, diga isso para o Francês milionário que dava prêmios para quem fizesse voos e que quando conheceu os Irmãos Wright mudou todo o seu conceito, diga isso ao primeiro avião militar americano inventado pelos irmãos wright em 1909, diga isso A ESSES IRMÃOS QUE ERAM POBRES BICICLETEIROS E FIZERAM UM AVIÃO COM TRÊS EIXOS COISA QUE DUMMONT ATÉ 1907 NÃO TINHA FEITO, ENQUANTO QUE ELES EM 1905 JÁ TINHAM CRIADO SEM NENHUMA CATAPULTA!!! UM ANO ANTES DE SANTOS DUMMONT!!!

@Marx is dead Argumente.

The Wrights had many failures which are well documented as were many of their solutions. I am not sure which failure Gen.. Starling is referring to. Perhaps it is the failure of one of the replica Flyers to get off the ground. Here is a replica of the Wright Flyer III which takes off without catapult assistance and makes a turn. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gNFkhst13MW4cac.html. Os Wrights tiveram muitos fracassos que estão bem documentados, assim como muitas de suas soluções. Não tenho certeza de qual fracasso Gen. Starling está se referindo. Talvez seja o fracasso da réplica Flyer para sair do chão.

Nem pra tanto cara. Eles não inventaram o avião, mas eram geniais também e merecem respeito.

@@maycondouglascamilodeolive7647 você sabia que o 14-bis tinha comando nos 3 eixos ? Não usava wing warping, mas superfícies separadas, conhecidas como ailerons, que equipam até hoje os aviões.

What were the conditions for winning the Deutch-Archdeacon prizes? Would they have allowed a catapult assisted take off? If not, then the Wright-Flyer I or II could not have been the first to fly 60 meters or 100 meters in France. In 1908, Wilbur was able to win the International Michelin Cup with a catapult assisted take off. For another record, Wilbur had to take off without the catapult to make it official and accepted by the FAI. Fédération Aéronautique Internationale - Wikipedia

@@stevebett4947 So basically you are telling the Flyer had no power to take of by itself wright? In your definition of airplane, if it can not take of without an external power, is it still an airplane?

@@sanpol4399 I think your definition of airplane includes something like unassisted take-off. I have not offered a definition. Cambridge Dictionary provides this definition: a vehicle with wings, powered by engines and having the ability to fly This would include a motorized glider without wheels. IMO: The Wright Flyer required a motor, wooden track, the assistance of a ground crew, a 20 MPH head wind, and very dense air. One way to compensate for the lack of ideal conditions was to employ a catapult which they started doing in 1904 in Ohio.

@@stevebett4947 Of course you know a dictionary is not the best way to define an airplane. By the definition that you pointed, a glider with a 3 volts electric toy motor spinning a 6 inch propeller, could fly all day taking advantage of the wind near a mountain, would be also defined as an airplane, but as we understand about aviation subject, we know a glider and an airplane are different things. Do you think something that can not maintain sustainable flight if there is no strong wind can be considered an airplane? Yes or not?

@@sanpol4399 AIRPLANE: a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces. That definition would include a model. I think you have to make additions to the term to limit its reference. Capable of sustained flight is a common addition. However, there are differences of opinion as to what this means. Wilbur also wanted a way to not include machines that could not hop more than 600 ft.

You're mistaken

@@peterson7082 fontes??

No pilot in the world could make it fly by itself.

@@Science_Atrium There was proof of concept test flight of the replica 1903 Wright Flyer. I think the date was Nov. 20, 2003. A couple of weeks before the Centennial failure. The details are in a report from Northrop, one of the companies that funded the Centennial celebration. The Flyer needed about a 24 mph headwind to take off. It was available on Nov. 20 but not on Dec. 17, 2003.

@@stevebett4947 Did it fly with its own thrust?

The conditions for the test flight were identical to those at the Centennial except for the wind. The Wright Flyer needs a head wind in excess of ten mph to get off the ground. As shown on the failed Centennial flight video, there was no hill and no catapult, .. The only thrust producer was the 12 hp engine. If the Centennial video suggests that the Flyer 1 could not fly then the test flight a month earlier suggests that it could .

@@stevebett4947 Oh nice...

The first series of Wright Flyers (I, II, III) required an airspeed of about 30+ mph over the cambered (airfoil) wings to fly. The 14 bis required about the same. In the case of the 14 bis, take off speed was attained with a 200 ft. taxi. down a dry, hard surface (or runway). The early underpowered Wright Flyers could not accelerate to take off speed when there was no wind. After the development of the 1906 Dayton upright 4, it could. @General Starling @Antonion Lima @SanPol @Davy Banana

Aham. Houve um 'gap' 63 anos até ela ser fundada e fabricar o primeiro avião.

Aí você viajou na maionese.

Teve a CAP (Companhia de Aviões Paulista) q fez o Paulistinha o CAP-4 em 1935 e Voava à 140 km/h,Sendo o primeiro avião em produção de larga Escala no Brasil

@@deividanderson5915 Há uma foto aqui. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP-4_Paulistinha O português é uma opção de idioma na Wikipedia. --majorbett

Friend, we know that you did it first, but you made a glider that isn't a plane, but it's a plane, but Santos made a plane that managed to get off the ground on its own, you might have the idea, but Santos created it.

@@barataec9732 commented: "SD made a plane that managed to get off the ground on its own." DRAFT: A number of early aviation pioneers claim to have done the same. They had wheels on their contraptions and may have been able to taxi to a take off speed. Both 50 m and 100 m were just hops, according to the Wrights. The flight was significant because other pioneers used the same engine in their flying machines and were able to duplicate the performance of the 14 BIS. It was also significant because the contest set up conditions to assure that the flight could be added to the record books. The conditions seem to be designed to overstate the importance of wheels in a time when there were few airfields. The also overstated the importance of taking off in low wind conditions. Contestants that required a headwind were disqualified. The Wright's thought that what was important was control and control in high gusty winds. In 1906, There was only one other real competitor for the 50 m and 100 m prize, Bleriot also tried to use the off the shelf Antoinette. engine but abandoned it.

Nem com catapulta aquele troço broxante levantou vôo.

you published this bunch of stuff and in the end you can't explain the video, let alone the success proved to Dumont in 1906, photographed and filmed as well as the beginning of aviation.

@@paulyouth8342 wrote: "You can't explain ......" The twos videos of replicas have little to do with the two records Santo Dumont set in the 14-bis. The failure of the exact replica of the 12 hp. Wright Flyer to achieve lift off in a 4 mph head wind and Calassa's sucessful demonstration of the performance capability of a look alike replica are easily explained. Did the Wrights' ever claim that their experiments represented the beginning of aviation? Please take issue with speciific claims you want to dispute rather than classify all of them as a bunch of stuff. @SanPol, @j b, @Jindle Spong, @Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles @Açúcar Chocolate, @MrBelo, @majorbett, @rjn bonif, @pipe cigar, @danieldbd, @Gilberto Nedel Junior, @No Brainer Languages, @rocknroll, @Selma Nedel, @harpiasonhadora sonhadora, @Marco Papa, @Anubis, @Ma-At, @majorbett, @Renaldo Borges, @elias lima,

@@stevebett4947 You argue the absurd. THE AIRPLANE HAS ALREADY BEEN INVENTED, DUMONT HAS ALREADY STARTED AND IT WAS IN 1906, IF YOU THINK THE ABSURD THAT YOU ARE ALLEGING IS CORRECT, TRY THE FOLLOWING: "PRESENT A MAGAZINE OR NEWSPAPER DATED BETWEEN 1903-1905 WITH DESCRIPTION OF THE WRIGHT'S FLIGHT AND PHOTOS IN THE PUBLICATION!!! Please.

kkkkkkk o avião era estranho né

Sim Americano Iludido Vocês foram os primeiros a usar Catapulta Ja Nos brasileiros voamos sem usar nada apenas o avião E o Santos Dumont retribuiu a produção em massa do avião na Europa ja os Estados Unidos não retribuíram em Nada Aqui no Brasil não e so Bunda e carnaval não

@@KauBloxBrasillll mano, ele tava falando o quanto os Wright foram patéticos

@@SirNatalicio ata desculpa ksksksksk

To our eyes, the first flights of the pioneers may seem insignificant and pathetic. During its short 7 month lifetime (13 Sep - 4 Apr) the 14-bis had a flight time of less than 3 min. The flight time of the 1903 Flyer on one day was was less. About 2 min. The Centennial flight 17 Dec 2003 may have reproduced the exact replica but not the conditions on 17 Dec 1903. The 1903 Wright Flyer will not fly when the wind and air density are low. The wind in 2003 was less than 5 mph. The altitude density on both dates is available from the weather station at Kitty Hawk. The wind for the 100 ft. test flights before the Centennial was better, about 15 mph. The wind on 17 Dec 1903 was over 20 mph. (URL below) The Flyer needs the assistance of both a 15 mph headwind and a motor producing over 8 hp. The one used in 1903 produced 16 hp. for 1 min. In 2003, the replica engine was wet and produced less power. The only thing the non-flight proved was that the Wright Flyer exact replica could not fly unless there was a headwind in excess of 15 mph and 8-16 hp motor. The motor was now powerful enough to accelerate to a take off speed in 60 ft. but it produced enough thrust to provide some forward air speed. Wright Experience exact replica of the 1903 Wright Flyer flies. Here is a video of one of the test flights. On November 20, 2003, Dr. Kevin Kochersberger piloted the 1903 Wright Experience Replica Flyer. With 15-18 mph winds he flew a distance of nearly 100 feet. Replica flies 100 ft. in 15 mph wind on 20 Nov 2003 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pZedpsak1dKRhok.html join the discussion @SanPol, @j b, @Jindle Spong, @Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles @Açúcar Chocolate, @MrBelo, @majorbett, @rjn bonif, @pipe cigar, @danieldbd, @Gilberto Nedel Junior, @No Brainer Languages, @rocknroll, @Selma Nedel, @harpiasonhadora sonhadora, @Marco Papa, @Anubis, @Ma-At, @majorbett, @Renaldo Borges, @elias lima, @Maria Luiza Wiethaeuper

@@stevebett4947 dude, i won't get you, sometimes you seen to be on santos dumont team and some other time you are on wright brothers team.

Eu acho que é sarcasmo. Mas em caso de não ser: a primeira é de 2003 para homenagear os 100 anos desde o primeiro voo. Uma vergonha que os estados unidos carregam. A segunda eu não sei, mas é em Brasília ( e Brasília tem só 61 anos)

hummm, vague, vague. you speack about: Glider(The airplane os not a glider or motorized glider), you speack about First Farman event circular flight(official) and speack about supposed's wright brothers flights 1904 whithout proofs!!!! nothing!! you quoted Ferber unnecessarily. no primacy has ever been proved for this man.

glider cited here was not the plane. this could at most be an experiment done with GLIDERS. the requirements referring to the first plane were different!!!

Dihedral wings produce _less_ lift than neutral wings do, so if all else were equal, the Wright Flyer’s wings would be better for lift. Wing dihedral promotes _stability_ in roll, and so the 14bis’ wings are superior in that aspect. The design choices made by Santos Dumont and the Wrights were appropriate for their aircraft. The Wright Flyer was intended to turn, and so roll stability was necessary limited for that purpose. The 14bis was intended to fly straight, and so roll resistance was a benefit.

@@cardinalRG oh yeah yes you are correct I'm sorry I was wrong 😁

@@walnutcape2622 No worries, and no need to apologize.

@@cardinalRG 😁

ele também criou o dirigível

You're confused

​@@peterson7082Guess u gotta check the vid again, bratha

@@PrettyBrazilianBoy no you need to study a bit more

@@peterson7082 against facts there's no arguments, with a catapult even the Wright Brothers airplane can fly, as u've seen in the video. Period

@@PrettyBrazilianBoy They didn't use a catapult until they started flying at Huffman Prairie...

Successful test flight: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pZedpsak1dKRhok.html By my count this was only an 8 sec. hop in ground effect. Not at all impressive but suggests that the first 3 claimed flights were not imaginary. They were predictable if the wind and air density were higher than on the particular date and location of the test flight. There are additional test flights which may have performed a little better but I have lost the URL. The wind speed during the test flights of the exact replicas in 2003 were never close to the 20-28 mph winds that the Wrights enjoyed on a cold morning on 17 Dec. 1903. I think that the wind and air density can be confirmed but neither Greg nor anyone else has posted a link to the source.

Sorry @Steve Bett, but I don't think what I saw in that video ( kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pZedpsak1dKRhok.html ) could be considered a flight. If you pay attention, you can see a ramp that makes the "plane" hop. Without that ramp, I doubt it could get off the ground.

@@NewtaoV "Exact replica can't hop without a ramp." SB: The Wright Flyer models I II, and III would have difficulty taking off in a wind of less than 15 mph without a wooden track or some other low friction runway surface. The two seat model A with the 1906 Wright-Taylor upright 4 (38 hp at low RPM) could do it. Are you arguing that using a wheeled dolly on a wooden track is assistance but the use of wheels and a hard flat surface is not? I don't think anyone missed the track used for take off. On the other hand, a significant number of viewers have missed the absence of a catapult.

​@@NewtaoV I think what you are calling a ramp is the is the wooden track. A wheeled dolly was was used to roll down the ramp. The 2 small wheels were actually bicycle hubs. The plank of wood with the wheels was jettisoned on take off. You can see it tumbling in some videos. Unlike the 2 place Wright Flyer Model A with its 1906 "Upright 4" engine producing 28 hp at low RPMs, the Wright Flyers I, II, and III almost always needed except on those rare days when high winds and air density permitted take off on the skids. The motorized glider could probably have been launched the way that the Wright Gliders were sometimes launched. The ground crew could pick up the glider because it had zero weight in high winds. The motor was there to keep the prototype from flying backwards. With the motor, the Wright Flyer had an air speed of around 10 mph. The Wrights' did test the Flyer when the conditions were about the same as on 17 Dec. 2003. Wind speed was less than 4 mph. Wilbur wanted to see if a 9 percent incline could compensate for the lack of wind. The Wrights' attempted to hide this experiment on 14 Dec. 1903. There is no mention of it in any of their official releases. They did manage a short hop when they launched from a hill. Drinkwater and ... recall the hill launch. Drinkwater did not witness the 17 Dec 1903 flights but did send the telegram to Katherine.

An interesting museum display of Santos Dumont as a designer. revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/santos-dumont/ This is in English but the original Portuguese version should be available.

@Danieldbdb DB: Alberto Santos-Dumont flew a real plane flawlessly. SB: Where do you get the idea that his flights were flawless? The video of the smooth flight of Alan Calassa's look-alike replica can be described as flawless. Please reference a 1906 film that matches it.

@danieldbdb, The failed flight on 17 Dec 2003 only proves that the first Wright Flyer could not fly without the assistance of the wind and a 12 hp motor. How do you explain the successful test flights of the 2003 Wright Flyer No catapult, No hill, only a wooden track or rail. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pZedpsak1dKRhok.html If the Wright gliders didn't fly. How do you explain the historical records they set. One record lasted 10 years. Rejection of historical records is not an explanation and the statement that the evidence is not good enough is an opinion not an empirical fact or even a valid historical statement. DB: Alberto Santos-Dumont flew a real plane flawlessly. SB: Where do you get the idea that his flights were flawless? The video of the smooth flight of Alan Calassa's look-alike replica can be described as flawless. Please reference a 1906 film that matches it. Can find film footage of one of the record breaking flights? I have seen short clips of some of the hops from 1906. I have yet to find any film footage of the record breaking flights.

that's why i hate some americans, they think they're superior to others and they think they're the only ones who can invent something spectacular, bunch of proud and arrogant

The 1903 Flyer did not use a catapult. It wasn't invented until August of 1904. On windy days in Ohio, they didn't use it. The catapult contributed about 6 mph to the minimum wind required for flight. That minimum was about 15 mph. @danieldbdb @sanpol @UC03haS3sRnGy_mxEFJFLFNQ

Stfu Brazilian your plane couldn't even fly right

Wleft brothers kkkkkk

​@@thatoneguythatlikesshipe o seu era a porra de um estilingue, se eu tacar tua mae ela vira um aviao tambem?

Flyer No.3 in 1905 flew for 39min for about 24mi.

Greg, Were the test flights before the Centennial or after (or both)? I have the URLs for the two test flights before the Centennial. Do you have URLs for later flights?

@brasileiros Silva Good link to some of the arguments of critics but why do you consider it to be definitive.

Hhahahahah NO it didn't!! Stop Lying!!!! and there's not a place at Kitty Hawk that rents one.

“Glider”, not airplane.

You’re misinformed. The earliest flights by the Wrights, in the 1903 flyer, did not use a catapult. Nor did any of their aircraft ever need one, but for a time the Wrights considered it a superior method of takeoff-especially considering the rutted condition of their home field (Huffman Prairie) where the 14bis itself would have struggled. All the same, when exhibition rules or potential customers compelled the installation of wheels, the Wrights complied, and with no other modifications their aircraft took off just fine.

@@cardinalrg5114 That's literally what I said.

@@archdornan1722 --My apologies. I misread your comment, and took your meaning for something else. _Mea culpa._

There are other builders of bis-14 RC Models. These are impressive and show that even without ailerons, Santos Dumont or Alan Calassa could have made a flat 180 degree turn. RC model 14bis kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hJh7dK93ydiyips.html

They glided in 1901 and 1902 while perfecting controlled flight. The addition of a 200 lb. engine in 1903 enabled them to double their flight distance and time aloft. By 1905 they were flying circles for 20 min. or more.

@@stevebett4947 So, basically you are saying that in 1903, the Flyer could not fly sustainable wright? Just could fly more distance, since it weighted 340,2 kg and the engine had only 12 hp .

Not quite. I do think that the 1903 flight could be described as a motorized glide. By adding the motor, however, they were able to double the 1902 flight distance of the glider. This assumes that Wilbur's last flight was correctly described. If true, I think it was a fluke and would be difficult to reproduce in the first Wright Flyer. The average distance for the highly unstable flying machine was about 600 ft. This may have been twice as far as the avg. glider flight but not as far as their record glider flights. Their record was not bettered for 10 years. Their 1908 altitude and distance records were surpassed on one year. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer This is a long detailed article. According to Orville, "We had designed our propellers to give 90 pounds (41 kg) thrust at a speed of 330 rev. per minute (about 950 of engine), which we had figured would be the required amount for the machine weighing 630 pounds (290 kg)." In practice tests however, they were able to achieve propeller rpm of 351, with a thrust of 132 pounds (60 kg), more than enough for their 700 pounds (320 kg) flyer Wrights moved the Flyer and its launching rail to the incline of a nearby sand dune, Big Kill Devil Hill, intending to make a gravity-assisted takeoff. The brothers tossed a coin to decide who would get the first chance at piloting, and Wilbur won. The airplane left the rail, but Wilbur pulled up too sharply, stalled, and came down after covering 105 feet (32 m) in 3​1⁄2 seconds, with not much damage. Orville's first flight lasted 12 seconds for a total distance of 120 feet (37 m) Taking turns, the Wrights made four brief, low-altitude flights that day. The flight paths were all essentially straight; turns were not attempted. Each flight ended in a bumpy and unintended "landing." The last flight, by Wilbur, was 852 feet (260 m) in 59 seconds, much longer than each of the three previous flights of 120, 175 and 200 feet (37, 53 and 61 m).

@@stevebett4947 Ok, so it could not take off or fly sustainable without an external power. And if the flight could be described as a motorized glide, so the machine was a glider, since could not keep a flight without a considerable slope or slope plus wind that generates uphill lift. 340,2 kg and 12 hp without any slope and wind, can not make any airplane fly. The maximum that can happen is a short jump, than the drag takes over, the speed drops fast and it lands immediately. There is no way to scape the physics of flight, even with nowadays airdynamics surfaces. Is there any proof about 1905 flights , or it is just notes made by them?

The wind was certainly required since they had yet to invent a catapult. They also had a wood rail to reduce ground friction and some assistance from their staff who held the wing tips on take off. There is no evidence that they relied on slope. The landing spot was no higher than at take off. The motor enabled them to fly further than they were able to glide. I think it doubled the flight distance. When a gust of wind flipped the unattended flyer they called it a day since they could not repair the damage and because they knew enough to improve the design in 1904. The new design enabled them to sustain flight for over 15 min and circle the field. They made no attempt to rebuild the wreck. Instead they added a catapult, boosted engine output, and reworked the basic design to add better pitch control and less drag. Because of the catapult, they were able to continue their experiments near Dayton. Much of this is chronicled at kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a5pljdej2a64lXk.html There is a better documentary that includes photos of the activity at H.. Prairie near Dayton.

Who’s the first, WRIGHT BROTHERS X SANTOS DUMONT???? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ptWmesqYxq-vYnU.html 1 Could The Flyer fly without CATAPULT, STRONG WINDS AND A HILL??? 2 When did the Wrights fly their FIRST PUBLIC RECORDED FLIGHT???? 3 WHY YOU WILL NEVER EVER SEE THE FLYER REPLICA FLYING?????? 14 bis was 5.6 times more powerful than the Flyer. 14 Bis had a takeoff weight of 250kg and a power of 50HP The Flyer had a weight of 340KG and a power of 12HP The Flyer was completely UNSTABLE, OVERWEIGHT, UNBALANCED, one side was heavier than other, UNDERPOWERED, UNCONTROLLABLE..... IT CAN'T FLY!!!!!! THAT'S WHY YOU WILL NEVER SEE A REPLICA FLYING EVEN TODAY!!!!! *NASA REPORT >>>>"Wright Flyer", A look at handling qualities of canard configurations, Nasa , p. 8, TM 88354, ...the Flyer was highly unstable... The lateral/directional stability and control of the Flyer were marginal."

Ta "refutando" geral ai kkkk O cara não sabe nem, da própria "Estória". Eleitor de Biden certeza hsuahsuahsuahsu

@@adrianogomesm3d672 vdd KaOkakaka

Search for flying replicas of the Wright Flyer. The search will produce over 10 videos.

it means that you yourself recognize a total dependence on very strong and contrary winds to fly very little. this does not meet the requirement for the first plane (the requirement was old), the WBs do not could run and take off. in other words, something totally outside the standards required for the first plane. Configured a motorized glider also old machine that did nothing! for this never gained nothing from the flyers, the wrights couldn't show a failure like this in front of experts. they knew the answer they would hear from everyone if they had shown something similar to the footage. one detail, FULLY MODERNIZED REPLICAS AND TRANSFORMED INTO AIRPLANES (MOTOR GLIDERS WERE NOT AIRPLANES) can fly, but original conditions since 1909 make replicas and the result It's this one. doesn't come off the ground. They hadn't reached plane level. the first was Dumont.

@@anselmobratkowsky9423 Thanks for the comment but I don't see the connection to my comment on how to find videos of flying replicas of the Wright Flyer. There are no films of the Wright flying machines before 1908. Did you check ouit any of them? The flights of the exact replica of the 1903 flyer is not impressive when compared to the flight of the 2 place Model A and B in 1908. The 1903 motorized glider was a proof of concept and did not comply with the unreasonable requirements found in the 1905 FAI rules for record breaking flights. The Wright Brothers planned to sell European built copies of the 1906 Dayton 32 hp engine and the more rugged airframe. They were not opposed to making a demonstration of any performance objectives that the sponsor wanted to include. They just required that the sponsor put up the money. They were not about to reveal their "secret" for free. Are you trying to claim that the failure of the Centennial flight is evidence that that Flyer cannot fly? It is only evidence that it cannot fly without a significant headwind. The flyer needed a a headwind of 15 mph or more to take off. Once in the air, the demands for power were less. Why is the requirement for no wind assist so important. Why is it OK to require a hard dry flat surface to reach take off speed but not OK to use a monorail, and high winds to attain the required wind across the cambered wing. IF you check any dictionary, motorized gliders are airplanes. You can make a distinction in a technical definition to favor the 14-BIS. Those who are pro-Wright can come up with technical definitions that require a practical airplane to bank and turn and fly in circles. REF: Invited to discuss" @David Day, @Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles @Açúcar Chocolate, @MrBelo, @majorbett, @rjn bonif, @pipe cigar, @danieldbd, @Gilberto Nedel Junior, @No Brainer Languages, @rocknroll, @Selma Nedel, @harpiasonhadora sonhadora, @Marco Papa, @Anubis, @Ma-At, @majorbett, @Renaldo Borges, @elias lima, @iChiphead @Sam Sabbath, @Eduardo Brandao, @PedroHBR13, @Le meilleur pour la France 1 year ago, @Wade French, @Yvea Elija, @Jose Luis P. C. Rocha, @Promachos Athena "Every international organization recognizes the Wright brothers as the first." @TwoMint, @Eduardo

@@stevebett4947 in the part referring to the 2003 exchange, yourself recognize that the artifact without wind does absolutely nothing. this is not the first plane and does not confirm any ability to run and take off,( basic principle of the airplane). that is, within the requirements for the first plane it is not difficult to conclude that two items the wright brothers had simply not developed The most important the capacity to run and take off. The use of headwind to keep a machine in the air would characterize a glider even if it is powered. cayley had already patented gliders since 1799 and he patented the first glider in 1843. motorized gliders were old and worthlessand. the biggest proof was the Centennial 2003 the machine did nothing, it's filmed and proven. another detail is that the use of headwind and downhill was prohibited.

​@@anselmobratkowsky9423 "an airplane has to have the ability to taxi to its take off speed on wheels" Please answer some of my questions. I have at least 3 answers posted in response to this comment. There was no need to develop a wheeled landing gear since the option was readilty available to copy. Most of the flying machines since the late 188's had landing gear qirh 2 or 4 wheels that looked like bicycle wheels. The 14 bis used 2 weels blus a skid. The option was available to them. Wilbur finally added the wheel option because some of his customers wanted them. With 32 hp available with the 1906 Wright upright four, they coiuld easily take off on skids. The Wrights' did not use them because they did not have ready access to a game field with a dtry, hard, flat surface. Wheels woiuld not work on sand or in a boggy pasture such as Huffman Prairie. Cayley did not patent the glider. He was rich and to patents. I don't recall of any successful motorized glider before 1900. Caley claims that he had come up with one around 1899 but although if hopped 50 m after rolling down a hill, he did not consider it a success. It was propelled by ab 8 hp steam or copressed air motor. (See Cayley at Wikipedia). It did not have anything close to a modern prop. The Wrights' seem to have invented the fiirst successful motorized glider. Why do you consider this ukseless and worthless It was sim;y a proof of concept for the Wrights. They did not consider it a practical airplane in 1903. A practical airplane has to be able to take off when there were cross winds and gain altitude by flying in circles. The 14-Bis probably did not meet the conditions of the Deutch-Archdeacon prize since the winningihop had to land withoiut damaging its undercarriage. The successful 100 m hop broke its landing gear when it landed. This may have been the reason that the FAI did not list it as the first successful rigged wing flying machine. Read the list at the FAI website. AB: you yourself show that the FAI has official records for Dumont and Farman. I can't find the official record for Santos-Dumont and the 14-Bis. His blimp record is recognized as is Farman's circular flight. The latter is recognized as the first official FAI record. REF: The Wright Brothers Part 3 (1970) Paul Garber - History Of Flight What the Wright Brothers Should Actually Be Famous For > F-0042 Early Aviaition/Airplane Video: The First Flying Machines Gorden Bennert Trophy: The 1909 competition was held as part of the Grande Semaine d'Aviation held at Reims in France, and consisted of two laps of a 10 km (6.2 mi) circuit. Like the subsequent competitions, it was not a direct race, but a time trial, with competitors taking off separately. As aircraft became faster and their engines more reliable, the distance to be covered was increased each year. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Bennett_Trophy_(aeroplanes) Year Location Winning pilot Aircraft type Distance Time Speed 1909 Reims, France Glenn Curtiss[5] Curtiss No. 2 20 km (12 mi) 15 min 50.6 s 75.27 km/h (46.77 mph) 1910 Belmont Park, New York, US Claude Grahame-White Blériot XI 100 km (62 mi) 1 h 1 min 4.74 s[6] 98.23 km/h (61.04 mph) 1911 Eastchurch, England Charles Weymann[7] Nieuport II 150 km (93 mi) 1 h 11 min 36.2 s 125.69 km/h (78.10 mph) 1912 Clearing, Illinois, US Jules Védrines Deperdussin 1912 Racing Monoplane 200 km (124 mi) 1 h 10 min 56 s[8] 169.7 km/h (105.4 mph) 1913 Reims, France Maurice Prevost[9] Deperdussin Monocoque 200 km (124 mi) 59 min 45.6 s 200.8 km/h (124.8 mph) 1920 Orléans/Étampes, France[10] Joseph Sadi-Lecointe[11] Nieuport 29 300 km (186 mi) 1 h 6 min 17.2 s 271.55 km/h (168.73 mph) I am having trouble copy & pasting the URL. There is engouh information to do you own Google search. Records in "gray" font color are unofficial, including unconfirmed or unpublicized (wartime) secrets. These are all recognized records but not necessarily official. Check: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record Date Pilot Groundspeed Location Notes mph km/h Aircraft 17 December 1903 Wilbur Wright 6.82 10.98 Wright Flyer Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, US This figure is groundspeed, not airspeed. The Wrights' first flight covered just over 120 ft (37 m) and about 12 seconds into a gusty wind. The Wrights estimated airspeed at 31 mph (50 km/h). 5 October 1905 Wilbur Wright 37.85 60.23 Wright Flyer III Huffman Prairie, Ohio, US 12 November 1906 Alberto Santos-Dumont 25.65 41.292 Santos-Dumont 14-bis Bagatelle Castle, Paris, France 26 October 1907 Henry Farman 32.73 52.700 Voisin-Farman I Issy-les-Moulineaux, France [2][3]: 9  25 May 1909 Paul Tissandier 34.04 54.810 Wright Model A Pau, France [2][3]: 11  23 August 1909 Glenn Curtiss 44.367 69.821 Curtiss No. 2 Reims, France 1909 Gordon Bennett Cup.[2][4]: 37-38 Invited to discuss: Invited to discuss: @Sapeca48 @iChiphead @Sam Sabbath, @Eduardo Brandao, @PedroHBR13, @Le meilleur pour la France 1 year ago, @Wade French, @Yvea Elija, @Jose Luis P. C. Rocha, @Promachos Athena "Every international organization recognizes the Wright brothers as the first." @TwoMint, @Eduardo Brandão

Mas não é

Como o primeiro avião do mundo foi o 14-bis, todos os outros é que voam ao contrário , não ele , hehehe 😀😀😀

@@sanpol4399 kkkkkkk

O 14 bis alem de ser o primeiro aviao do mundo E o primeiro e único qua da ré sem precisar de um carrinho para puxar e olha ate vooa de ré

Se chama "configuração canard", se voce olhar os caças modernos vai entender...

SB: Worth reading By Aviation Oil Outlet on Oct 16th 2020 The 2016 Rio Olympics sparked some historic controversy: During the Opening Ceremony, Brazil paid homage to Alberto Santos-Dumont, the man the country credits with inventing the airplane. Who Actually Invented the Airplane? Ask any American, and the general consensuses will be the Wright brothers. This is a relatively undisputed fact. Orville and Wilbur Wright made the first controlled, sustainable flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft December 17, 1903, a little south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Historically, this gives them the reign of inventors of the airplane...but not to all. If you ask the Brazilians who fathered modern aviation, they will tell you a completely different story. Alberto Santos-Dumont was a Brazilian aviation pioneer born July 20, 1873. He spent most of his adult life living in Paris, France, where he dedicated himself to studying and experimenting with aeronautics. He designed, built, and flew hot air balloons and early dirigibles (airships) before he began his work pioneering heavier-than-air aircraft. His first fixed-wing aircraft was a canard biplane called the 14-bis. On October 23, 1906, Santos-Dumont flew the 14-bis in what was the first powered heavier-than-air flight in Europe to be certified by the Aro Club de France and the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI). The aircraft flew for 197ft at a height of about 16ft. It won the Deutsch-Archdeacon Prize for the first officially observed flight of more than 25 meters. You can watch Santos-Dumont's first flight below (the narration is in German): But obviously by 1906, the Wright bros had already flown. In fact, by this point, Orville and Wilbur had already flown their Wright Flyer III for over a half hour. So where’s the dispute? Controversy Well, one claim is that the the Wrights had no witnesses to their early accomplishments because it was not a public event. For that reason, they had trouble establishing legitimacy, particularly in Europe where some adopted an anti-Wright stance. By contrast, Santos-Dumont’s flight was the first public flight in the world, so he was hailed as the the inventor of the airplane across Europe. Ernest Archdeacon, the founder of Aéro-Club de France, publicly scorned the brothers’ claims despite the published reports. Archdeacon wrote several articles, including a statement in 1906 in which he stated, “the French would make the first public demonstration of powered flight.” In 1908, Archdeacon publicly admitted to doing the Wrights an injustice after they flew in France. Defining an Airplane Henrique Lins de Barros (a Brazilian physicist and Santos-Dumont expert) has argued that the Wrights did not fulfill the conditions set up during this period to distinguish a true flight from a prolonged hop; Santos-Dumont, on the other hand, took off unassisted, publicly flew a predetermined length in front of experts, and then safely landed. Brazilians fail to recognize the legitimacy of the Wright Brothers’ flight because they claim the Wright Flyer took off from a rail and, then later used a catapult (or, at the very least, used an incline to takeoff). However, CNN’s 2003 report on these claims reveal that even Santos-Dumont experts don’t believe this is accurate, though Lins de Barros believes that the “strong, steady winds at Kitty Hawk were crucial for the Flyer’s take-off, disqualifying the flight because there was no proof it could lift off on its own.” Peter Jakab, chairman of the aeronautics division at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington and a Wright brothers expert, on the other hand, says that such claims, as put forth by Lins de Barros, are absurd: “Even in 1903 the airplane sustained itself in the air for nearly a minute. If it’s not sustaining itself under its own power it’s not going to stay up that long.” Competing Claims By the early 20th century, it was a race to get the first powered aircraft up in the air. Every aspiring aviator wanted the recognition of inventing the first powered, heavier-than-air airplane (don’t forget-other experimental aircraft and early flying machines were already around), and Alberto Santos-Dumont is not the only aviator to claim the first successful powered flight (outside of the Wright Bros). SB: Contenders for the first rigid wing heavier than air manned flying machine or aeroplane. (not powered flight) Cayley 17 Lawrence Hargrave 18 John J. Montgomery 1883 Patent applied in 1904, awarded 1896) Not the first glider..but the first controlled glider able to bank and turn. (please make additions to this list) As learned by the experts in Galant Journey movie, control wasn't good enough. The exact replica had to be modified to make the glider safer to fly. Using today's know how, the original airplanes can always be improved and made less risky to fly. Some of the more significant claims include the following aviators: Clement Ader in the Avion III (1897) Gustave Whitehead in his No’s 21 and 22 aeroplanes (1901-1903) Richard Pearse in his monoplane (1903-1904) Samuel Pierpont Langley’s Aerodome A (1903) Karl Jatho in Jatho biplane (1903) Ader’s claim was debunked by 1910. Pearse did not claim the feat of first powered flight himself Langley’s Aerodome failed to fly either of the two attempts. In Germany, some credit Jatho with making the first airplane flight, although sources differ whether his aircraft was controlled. Whitehead Developments Of all the aviators who claimed to have flown in powered airplanes before the Wright Brothers, the most controversial is perhaps Gustave Whitehead. Whitehead’s claims were not taken seriously until 1935, when two journalists wrote an article for Popular Aviation. In 1963, reserve U.S. Air Force major William O’Dwyer researched Whitehead and because convinced that he did fly; his research contributed to Stella Randolph’s 1966 book, The Story of Gustave Whitehead, Before the Wrights Flew. On March 8, 2013, Jane’s all the world’s aircraft, published an editorial by Paul Jackson endorsing Whitehead’s claim. On June 11, 2013, Scientific American published a rebuttal of the Whitehead claims, and on October 24, 38 air historians and journalists rejected the claims and issued a Statement Regarding The Gustave Whitehead Claims of Flight. Rear view of Whitehead's No. 21 (source: wright-brothers.org) We may never actually know who really and truly invented the first airplane, but much of the evidence (and general consensus) support the Wright Brothers. But it's hard to say. Unfortunately, authentication doesn't always occur immediately upon invention (particularly when we're talking about history). It's hard to say that inventions and recognition should only go to those who seek out public view and have spotless documentation, yet how can authenticity be determined without those? Perhaps if the airplane wasn't such a technological feat, one that has only grown in global importance, the "who" wouldn't be such a big deal. I mean, we don't even know who invented the wheel... If you followed in the footsteps of the likes of the Wright Brothers and Santos-Dumont and have taken to the sky, be sure to check out our line of aviation lubricants, and enjoy Free Shipping on orders over $75!

NÉKKKK

Hmmmm *colina* *trilhos* *e* *catapulta*

@DIEGO ALVES SB: Ainda estou tentando identificar as ideias e contribuições de Santos Dumont (SD) que poderia ser roubado. Até agora, minha lista contém apenas 4 entre março de 1905 a abril de 1906. Eu credito o design da asa 14-bis a SD, mas outros criticaram isso porque a asa e o elevador do boxkite foram pioneiros em Hargrave. Eu chamo o uso de um poderoso motor leve Antionette de 50 hp de um dos Contribuições do SD. Meus críticos argumentam que SD não teve qualquer papel no desenvolvimento deste motor. @majorbett, @rjn bonif, @pipe cigar (In English) SB: I am still trying to identify the ideas and contributions of Santos Dumont (SD) that could be stolen. So far my list contains only 4 between March of 1905 to April of 1906. I credit the 14-bis wing design to SD but others have criticized this because the boxkite wing and elevator were pioneered by Hargrave. I call the use of a powerful light weight Antionette 50 hp engine one of SD's contributions. My critics argue that SD did not have any role in the development of this engine. @pipe cigar

@@stevebett4947 É só uma piada

@@SirNatalicio?

Pior que sim. Decolagem em porta aviões, concordo que Dumont foi o que voou verdadeiramente em um avião primeiro, mas esse argumento usado por ti tem falhas.

@@luanverissimo4899 verdade, mas em geral nos aeroportos não se usa isso

@@Eduardooooo1 e realmente, em pistas com comprimento suficiente a catapulta é desnecessária para a decolagem desses aviões

Lipka writes: Do any planes these days use a catapult to take off? Of course not. Santos Dumont true inventor of the plane The Navy used catapults to launch planes safely and quickly. It is just a way to reduce the length of the run way. Santos Dumont needed about 200 ft. of dry hard flat surface. With a catapult he could have reduced the take off run to around 60 ft or 20 meters. Unless the prototype was so flimsy that it would fall apart as the Aerodrome did. (Video available). Not sure how the absence of a catapult makes Santos Dumont the inventor of the air plane. Looks like a non-sequitur. There were about 200 people that contributed to the development of the practical airplane before 1910. No one gets to claim that they alone invented the flying machine. REF: Invited to discuss: @David Day, @Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles @Açúcar Chocolate, @MrBelo, @majorbett, @rjn bonif, @pipe cigar, @danieldbd, @Gilberto Nedel Junior, @No Brainer Languages, @rocknroll, @Selma Nedel, @harpiasonhadora sonhadora, @Marco Papa, @Anubis, @Ma-At, @majorbett, @Renaldo Borges, @elias lima, @

RC white brother replica HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA what a joke! Make a replica flight! DUMONT showed all his own project to the WORLD! And the replicas made today all works perfectly!

It was NOT intended to make turns. It just needed to take off. Later Dumont projected the Demoiselle - a real plane.

Paulo Pereira : It was NOT intended to make turns. SB: I agree. It was designed to win 2 prizes. The challenge did not require the ability to bank and turn. It needed just enough control to make minor corrections to stay on course. It did not need the ability to handle cross winds since the flight could be delayed until the wind conditions were right.

@@Produto_Ideal Who builds replicas of the 14 bis other than Alan Calassa? They only fly perfectly under ideal flying conditions. The design is very stable but cannot turn around. Santos Dumont failed in his attempt to improve the design and seems to have abandoned the design as a dead end. Albereto showed the world how to build the 1909 Demoiselle 19. He did not release any plans for the 14 bis. My request for a RC model of the 14 bis is not a joke.

@@Produto_Ideal Few prototypes work perfectly. Santos Dumont commissioned Voisin to build a plane for him. Voisin had a box kite winged prototype that had yet to fly. The version built for Santos Dumont also failed to fly until Santo-Dumont found an exceptional engine that was both light weight and powerful, the 1906 Antoinette 8V. The 1903 Wright Flyer flew in very high winds. The winds were in excess of 20 mph on Dec. 17, 1903. 100 years later on a rainy day, they were almost non-existent. Since the 1903 Wright Flyer required a headwind in excess of 15 mph to fly, no one expected the exact replica to fly more than a few feet. With zero wind, it didn't even do that. The 1903 received no assistance from a catapult. It did need assistance from nature: a headwind of more than 15 mph. Without the wind, it will not fly. For details, check out wrightbrothers.org and wikipedia.org. Here is the URL for the engine used in 1908. It was a French built copy of the Dayton engine. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Vertical_4

Perhaps the statement is too abbreviated. The claim is usually that the 1903 Flyer flight lacks the kind of proof that became available after 1906. The usual Brazilian argument is that no flight before 1908 has convincing proof. It is just as hard for me to accept the alternative hypothesis that none of these early flights ever took place.

@j g: Those who claim that neither the Wrights nor anyone else was able to make the Wright Flyer fly need to provide more detail. How do they deal with the successful test flights of the 2003 Wright Flyer which was an exact replica of the original 1903 Wright Flyer. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pZedpsak1dKRhok.html They accept the failed flight on Dec. 17, 2003 as proof that the Flyer can't fly when all it proved was that it can't fly without the assistance of a strong headwind. With a headwind of about 14 mph, it could make a 100 ft. hop. This is consistent with the reported distance of the first flight: 120 ft. (12 sec). in a wind of over 18 mph. The next two flights covered an estimated distance of 175 ft. The Wrights used an device that Chanute loaned them to measure wind speed. WIth an equation, it could also indicate distance. Given the success of the test flights of the Wright Experience exact replica, these also seem plausible. On November 20, 2003, Dr. Kevin Kochersberger piloted the 1903 Wright Experience Replica Flyer. With 15 mph winds he flew a distance of nearly 100 ft. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pZedpsak1dKRhok.html

@@stevebett4947 There was a CATAPULT IN THE RAIL in the video, the engine couldn't impulse the glider alone on the rail, IT BARELY COULD DO IT MISERABLY DOWN a HILL!!! BUT NEVER ON A FLAT LAND!!!! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!!! IT'S A BAD GLIDER THAT CAN'T FLIGHT!!!! NO CONTROLLABLE!!! NOT SUSTAINED!!!! NOT EVEN POWERED!!!!! Look it if you don't believe in me: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ptWmesqYxq-vYnU.html

@@rjnbonif3603 It is impossible for the Wright Flyer to fly on flat land. SB: Explain this: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pZedpsak1dKRhok.html This was a test flight before the Centennial when the wind speed was about 15 mph. It lasted about 8 sec. and covered about 100 ft. The 17 Dec 2003 video does show a rail or wooden track but no derrick catapult. How can there be a catapult in the rail? Are you calling the use of a track equivalent to a catapult? When did the Wright Flyer barely fly down a hill? It did not fly at all in the video. How can you talk about sustained flight and control unless the prototype takes off? How can a bad glider set a world record that lasted 10 years? It was set on a windy day. The Wright Brothers would not have attempted to set a record on a day with little wind. How can you conclude anything from a video on a wet windless day other than the exact replica of the 1903 flyer didn't fly in those conditions? It might be evidence that the flyer could not fly without the assistance of a strong headwind. It is not evidence that it could not fly when there was a strong wind. The track appears to be set on a slight incline. The Wrights' claim that the landing spots were higher than where they took off. How would this be determined? They did have an instrument that might have provided some evidence. How can you conclude anything about Santos Dumont's record flight from the flight of a modernized look alike replica? How can you compare the flight of someone with over 300 hours rigid wing flight experience with someone with less than 3 min. of experience. The smoothness of Calassa's midday flight is no evidence that Santos Dumont's evening flight was equally smooth. There are some parallels. Wilbur Wright set a 77 mile distance record for 1908 in the Wright Flyer Model A. The man who tried to set a record in Australia piloted a Model A. The best he could do was about 30 ft. He had zero experience as a pilot. @NewtaoV, @bvb, @MS A, @Thiago, @Mr Belo, @wanter, @pipe cigar, @j g, @SanPol,

@@stevebett4947 My dear. So it must be easy to you to show to everybody the conclusion of that flight with all details and characteristics PUBLISHED, VERIFIED and CERTIFIED in a reliable scientific institution so everybody using the same could replicate the experiment, right???? .......or is your "RELIABLE" SOURCE ONLY a VIDEO published on internet????? *YOU WILL NEVER EVER FIND IT BECAUSE THEY WERE COMPLETELY ASHAMED WITH THE RESULTS THAT PROVED IT CAN'T FLYS!!!!! You can still say Wright brothers' notebook made by Wright brothers is THE HOLY TRUTH and don't need scientific provable because they are americans and that's enough!!! .....even if physics contradicts it. Hahahah That replica can't move on a track on a flat land by itself!!!! *0:38** You can see the pulley of the catapult on the floor at the end of the track.* The Flyer was underpowered as all gliders they did til 1910!!!!

Brazil first in flight

That was a good catch. Btw, that thing would be great in black. It would resemble some kind of cyberpunk Batman. Thank you for the information.

Check out www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-debunks-claim-gustave-whitehead-was-first-in-flight/

Any claim of airplane flight before 1906 goes to the same package of claims without convincing evidences. No proof at all. The first airplane flight that is easily replicated and nobody has any doubt about is the Santos Dumont flight with 14-bis. That was a fact.

@@stevebett4947 1 Could The Flyer fly without CATAPULT, STRONG WINDS AND A HILL??? 2 When did the Wrights fly their FIRST PUBLIC RECORDED FLIGHT???? 3 WHY YOU WILL NEVER EVER SEE THE FLYER REPLICA FLYING?????? 14 bis was 5.6 times more powerful than the Flyer. 14 Bis had a takeoff weight of 250kg and a power of 50HP The Flyer had a weight of 340KG and a power of 12HP The Flyer was completely UNSTABLE, OVERWEIGHT, UNBALANCED, one side was heavier than other, UNDERPOWERED, UNCONTROLLABLE..... IT CAN'T FLY!!!!!! THAT'S WHY YOU WILL NEVER SEE A REPLICA FLYING EVEN TODAY!!!!! *NASA REPORT >>>>"Wright Flyer", A look at handling qualities of canard configurations, Nasa , p. 8, TM 88354, ...the Flyer was highly unstable... The lateral/directional stability and control of the Flyer were marginal."

It's no use trying to open a debate with such nonsense. It is easier for you to present a magazine dated between 1903-1905 with a report of a flight and the photos of the flight, you will win any debate and will prove that WB really flew before. Simple!!

​@@paulyouth8342 The "evidence" presented by him was in 1908, who guarantees that that glider was really the first? And this is on Wikipedia, only 1908.. In the my opinion the US always plays dirty but ok

It was not. But please, will you give your argument and your evidence, please?

​@@cardinalRGquit😊❤e simple, just watch the vid again

You will not pass Trump's wall just by defending american lies :) The FLYER was not a plane,just a motorized glider.

Todos sabem como , onde está a prova deste tal primer vuelo ?

PROVAS DOCUMENTAIS DEL PRIMERO WRIGHT VUELO PLEASE, REGISTRO OFICIAL, DATAS ENTRE 1903 1905, FOTOS E FILMES.

El "avión" de los Wright era un simple planeador com motor.

planador é uma coisa, avião é outra.