People also forget the Wrights invented the wind tunnel and had to correct lots of data regarding airfoils. People simply fail to realize just how much work the Wrights did to advance aviation. Airfoils, wind tunnels, propellers, engines, 3 axis control, etc. Their attempts at secrecy and trying to patent all of aviation was a mistake afterwards though. I've read the Wright Flyer was capable of crossing the Mediterranean before Bleriot even crossed the English channel for example. And Wilbur had been offered $5000 to cross the English Channel as well, but refused claiming it was a wreckless stunt. Wish he'd just asked if one of his pilots was interested. The Wright Flyer was superior to so many other designs for many years. But I agree none the less, others did contribute to the advancement of aviation and should be recognized for that. I myself didn't know that much about Dumont prior to this video. What is interesting to me is that many people, Wrights included, had successfully flown heavier than air gliders for many years prior to 1903, but it was the "powered" heavier than air flight that was important. With multiple people achieving glider flight, it baffles me that so many others didn't seem to pay attention to the gliders, and what enabled them to fly. Seems many "hop" designs didn't pay much attention to the gliders. Considering this was a key part of the Wrights approach, I wonder if anyone else would have gotten closer than they did had they paid attention to those a bit more. But, many gliders had little to no control either, so perhaps not. The Wrights just asked the correct questions that others never did, as stated in the video.

@@SoloRenegade Consider what might have happened had Lilienthal not crashed. He _might_ have beaten them by a whisker, but I have a gut feeling that he would have been an empirical hero rather than a methodical one.

Well stated.

Greg : "I'm a fan of Santos Dumont" You mean you are the propeller?

@@SoloRenegade The Wrights didn’t simply invent the airplane. They, if not invented, _codified_ Aeronautical engineering

Let's remember in fairness to Dumont, he did do a lot, and for some reason he doesn't get credit for his actual achievements.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles which is why propping up Dumont, a great and respectable pioneer in his own sense, against the Wright brothers does him an unfair disservice. Agreed.

Conhecimento e engenharia? Kkkkk O flyers I que supostamente vôo em 1903 pesava 340Kg, a potência do motor era de apenas 12 HP! Me explica como eles voaram? Se hoje sabemos que e impossível voar com esses números!

@@gghhhfghgh yes. It would help your understanding of the Wright brothers' work to look past the numbers of the Wright Flier I and fully appreciate the experimental cataloguing of airfoils and calculation factors.

@@daszieher Ninguém está negando a contribuição Wright para aviação só que após 1908! Até onde sei aviação da Europa era mais avançada e cresceu independente dos Estados Unidos que era atrasado! Motivo dos atrasos os Wright processavam qualquer um que tentava voar! E o primeiro a voar oficialmente nós Estados Unidos foi Glee Curtis!

I didn't even want to get in to the Adler debate. France's claim to fame with aviation is that they were the first country to really embrace it, and as a result, they were the leaders in aviation up until at least WW1 and arguable into the 1920s.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles did I mention your video is awesome? Learned so much.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Majorbett: Greg, are you saying that Ader's eole and Avion prototypes inspired a generation of would be aeronauts? That is what the Brazilian's claim that Santos-Dumont did. See this video: @Johannes914: "No one in France claims Santos Dumont made the first flight." SB: That may be an overstatement. Do you have any supporting evidence? The Brazilian's claim that everyone in France believed this in the early 1900's and the existence of the historical markers, particularly the monolith at the Bagatelle game field where the first official flight took place in 1906 proves this. They also believe that everyone in every country other than America agrees with them. When residents of other countries disagree it is because of American propaganda and ignorance. @Renaldo Borges, @elias lima, @j b, @Jindle Spong @memorialriflerange,

I am surprised that no one has used modern knowledge to build a lookalike AVION model that did fly. There is a look-alike SD 14 BIS that can fly in circles. Bleriot built and flew an odd looking airplane in 1909.

Reid, we are on the same page.

Dude sure was a baller...

I hate to put you guys off, but Dummont was more or less assexual. He had only one known crush in his entire life, and if took a lady out in his dirigible, she was more than probably a nice company over coffee and was safely delivered back home the next day. Untouched lol. I loved the video, BTW ☺️

Greg, I thought it was amazing of you to actually take the time and effort to respond to all of those things, but sadly, Dummont is something like a revered figure IN Brazil, mostly due to the fact that the schools teach us that he was the actual inventor of the heavier-than-air machine we all come to know and love as the airplane. And sadly this trend will go on into the foreseeable future. They even teach us THAT Dummont invented the worst watch with Cartier, something which had already existed for some time. I grant you that he was indeed a visionary for his own time, had wonderful ideas about in any number of fields. His house in a city called Petrópolis is nothing short of amazing, and very excentric, but his vision regarding airplanes and the future weren't way too idealistic. A great man, but definitely not the first to fly and some people over here have a bit of a problem understanding that.

I have heard the argument that he was asexual, homosexual or whatever. I'm not buying it. He literally had a blimp docked at his apartment for going on dates. We know he took women on these dates, and even let one fly his blimp. She was probably the first female aviator at that point. Not that I care about his personal life, but the way I see it, the evidence shows that he was quite a lady's man, private about it, but definitely liked the ladys.

It took me forever to figure out the pedal thread thing because it seems backwards to me. Wasn't until a few years ago that I saw a youtube video explaining it that I finally understood why.

Dang, I didn't realize they were the ones who figure that out.

That's one of those things that is so simple that you just assume it always existed, but was probably a huge problem until someone actually figured it out.

@@wingracer1614 cars used to have left and right hand threads for wheels too, until nuts with conical or tapered contact faces were used. I wish bicycle pedals used conical faces...

Too bad that wind tunnel was invented 30 years before by Wenham.

Good satire. I got into an argument with a Brazilian who claimed that Cayley did not fly because he didn't comply with the 1905 French FAI standards. I asked how could he comply with a standard that didn't exist in Cayley made no claim to being the first to fly. It was just an experiment to satisfy his curiosity. He is said to flown 900 ft. using an 8 hp engine and his chauffeur as his test pilot. His conclusion was that the technical requirements for manned flight would take time. He didn't specify a date but other aviation pioneers predicted that manned flight would be achieved as early as 1950. in the 1800's, few believed that manned flying machine was possible. Cayley correctly predicted (c. 1800) that sustained flight would not occur until a lightweight engine was developed to provide adequate thrust and lift. The Wright brothers acknowledged his importance to the development of aviation. Sir George Cayley, (1773 - 1857) was an English engineer, inventor, and aviation pioneer. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cayley

In your dream stop crying 1 Year old kid is salty 😁

@@mikuhatsune8121 you failed to recognize a very obvious joke someone wrote more than two years ago. Be more cautious throwing insults around in future.

@@joearnold6881 in your dream stop crying 1 Year old kid is salty 😁

Try this: Wright brothers, 1903: Even a stone launched by a catapult can fly and be photographed during the "flight" in the opinion of the Americans. Flyer Replicas; Can't fly. (Maybe the catapult replicas aren't quite good enough. Santos Dumont, 1906 Bagatelle field, France: Real flight footage with takeoff carried out using the engine's own thrust and witnessed by a crowd of French citizens and reporters. Replicas of the 14 Bis: Can fly and it has already been proven on video No more comments.

I had a blimp in high school...Oh, wait...That was my girlfriend. Fortunately, she never let me get to first base with her so I didn't knock her up.

The comedian Gallagher flew a blimp in his shows, when I was in high school

Forward Gregs' entire library! This man should be in all aeronautical classrooms!

Does long & thin work for you?

If you want to find out about the origins of flight you MUST study the romanian contribution to the aviation: Traian Vuia, Aurel Vlaicu, Henri Coandă...

@@bububaba8727 How should you do this if you don't speak or read Romanian? From Wikipedia Traian Vuia was the first to demonstrate that a flying machine could rise into the air by running on wheels on an ordinary road.[2] He is credited with a powered hop of 11 m (36 ft) made on 18 March, 1906, and he later claimed a powered hop of 24 m (79 ft).[3][4] Though unsuccessful in sustained flight, Vuia's invention influenced Louis Blériot in designing monoplanes. SB The 79 ft. hop would be enough to win the Archdeacon prize. . . . If he had done it before Santos Dumont (also in 1906).

@@stevebett4947 well...wikipedia is on english too :-) The flight of Traian Vuia is on of the best documented historical flight, there are plenty of pictures and articles on the time papers available in internet. Enjoy!

His ascend to "Pai da Aviação" as a political and grudge move. Powerful figures that had no understanding of aviation still refused to recognize the Wrights. Their recognition would meant that Dumont was no longer the first to fly and they used pride as a fuel to their denial. And "Pai da Aviação" was a powerful icon to instigate patriotism. Patriotism is a very powerful weapon to manipulate the population and politicians could not let it go. They choose propagated those false information and use it to distract the population away from their thievery and crimes. Those false information still deeply rooted on our culture to this day.

@@vitor900000 We have our own big lies from politicians but so far they have have lacked an aviation connection. That hasn't prevented some Brazilian critics of the Wright Brothers to argue that the belief that America has to be first in all things that prevents them from recognizing that Santos Dumont was first. @Greg's Automobiles and Airplanes,

The Wrights were first in 1903. Dumont got into the air in 1906. All three men were brilliant problem solvers. Much credit goes to Dumont for advancing aviation. The same can’t be said of the Wrights as they wanted to patent their research. The Wrights however were the first to understand and then accomplish powered and controlled flight on December 17, 1903. The first attempt was on December 14, 1903, but the weather was not favorable.

@@Machia52612 Why are you shunning the Wright Brothers just because they applied for several patents? They were inventors. That’s how you protect intellectual property that is the result of sometimes a life’s worth of work and dedication.

Wright brothers, 1903: Even a stone launched by a catapult can fly and be photographed during the "flight" in the opinion of the Americans. Flyer Replicas; Can't fly. (Maybe the catapult replicas aren't quite good enough. Santos Dumont, 1906 Bagatelle field, France: Real flight footage with takeoff carried out using the engine's own thrust and witnessed by a crowd of French citizens and reporters. Replicas of the 14 Bis: Can fly and it has already been proven on video No more comments.

We see the importance of efficiency but it has two sides. Some anti-Wright activists claim that the prop was slowed down to the RPM of a ceiling fan and implied that the thrust was also about the same as a ceiling fan. Their conclusion, the Wright Flyer could not possibly fly. Drag would be greater than Thrust. We know that a spring scale was used to measure static thrust on the 1903 flyer. Does anyone know how much thrust a ceiling fan can produce? It uses flat paddle props so it can't be very efficient.

@@mcs699 There are disadvantages to using the 3rd person point of view but it seemed appropriate when commenting on a debate. Can you make my point better in the first person? Example of a 3rd person POV: "A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein

I guess because bicycles are about efficiency. A mountain bike vs a road bike.

@@stevebett4947 Static thrust is meaningless. It is thrust in the air with the proper combination of revolution rate and forward speed that matters.

@@aeromodeller1 The Wrights measured static thrust every time they changed props. If the new prop was not pulling enough on their simple spring gauge it probably would not produce enough thrust to get the 1903 flyer in the air. The Wrights' were minimalists. The engine produced just enough power to compensate for the headwind. The revolution rate was fixed at a very low ( ) RPM and an 8 to 16 hp engine wasn't going to produce much forward speed. Prop efficiency was important and they didn't have a better way to determine if it would be as high as their calculations.

There are just those people who really hate propeller basics

Turbines are the future!

The same types who feel that Tesla didn't get enough (all) of the credit have attached themselves to Santos-Dumont. As though he is some sort of underdog, lol. Besides, the Wrights' work was well documented in all the best apiary journals...

Brazilians get triggered just by having the name of the Wright brothers mentioned, that's a sad reality when we get taught at school, TV, government publications and museums that the inventor of the airplane was Santos Dumont. It has become a question of national pride, even at the fifth year of engineering (where we could expect genuine interest in the matter and academic knowledge of fluid mechanics to make sense of all that) I have difficulty finding anybody that recognises any flight by the Wrights as having actually happened (or alternatively they say "a catapult is not a plane")

@@eduardocharlier7560 exactly they are in deep denial

Thanks.

He literally had the solution right under his nose

Well played, monsieur, well played!

Its ok to fall asleep. You can see it again.

@@clayz1 Not ok, he will fall behind and we'll all have to wait for him to catch up.🤣

The British are just about as bad, they blame Americans for stealing all their great ideas, so they can serve their egos by claiming they invented everything - despite achieving nearly nothing in aviation since 1939.

okay

That's a good point.

@Don Balduf DB: "If the prop isn't an airfoil, he didn't fly with it." SB: Whitehead would have had a comeback, It wouldn't have satisfied the engineer but it was enough for the reporters. You don't need an airfoil prop to fly. You do need more power to overcome the inefficiency of a paddle prop. You can also fly without airfoil wings.

There were two look alike replicas that were built using a modern engine with power that matched Whitehead's claims and with modern (airfoil) props. With the modern additions, the contraption hopped a considerable distance without crashing.

@@stevebett4947 one such aircraft is housed and maintained just a few miles from my home at Dayton-Wright Brothers Airport. I’ve seen it many times in the air and static. The pilots say it’s rather a different beast from a modern aircraft but flies well as long as its flying characteristics are known and respected.

@@stevebett4947 Except he didn't have excess power.

@428 Renegade: Langley used a catapult too, no one criticized him for that. @SB: We have the video of the Langley's catapult in action. It didn't conform to the Brazilian expectations. It couldn't make pigs or shit or or anything fly. The Langley-Manley Aerodyne prototype just came to the end of the linear catapult and dropped into the Potomac without flying at all.. Langley's model Aerodrome, however, did complete a successful flight. and was photographed by Alexander Graham Bell. Langley used a spring catapult. The Wright derrick catapult was different. Links: video. Langley Aerodrome: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g5Nld8h627WuZ40.html I think the video is included in one of Greg's videos. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley_Aerodrome Oct. 7, 1903 upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Samuel_Pierpont_Langley__-Potomac_experiment_1903.jpeg/375px-Samuel_Pierpont_Langley-__Potomac_experiment_1903.jpeg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aviation First Flight: web.archive.org/web/20110104020557/history.nasa.gov/monograph27.pdf www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Wright_Story/Inventing_the_Airplane/Darkest_Hour/Darkest_Hour.htm @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 Doesn't matter, he used a catapult, and that is the whole point. And just because the plane never flew from the catapult, doesn't mean the catapult didn't work or couldn't launch a flying machine successfully.

@@SoloRenegade the catapult could launch a flying machine... SB: The issue is how this particular type of catapult worked. There are different catapults that will launch anything (e.g., a large trebuchet). The linear catapult will accelerate objects but the lift has to be provided by wings or an airfoil shape.

@@stevebett4947 One, I know how an airplane flies, and two, I'm well aware of what a catapult is and how they work, and the many types. But, for the sake of my original comment, the exact type and method of operation of the catapult is/was of no concern.

@@SoloRenegade As I recall Greg's comment was. "If the plane won't fly, the catapult won't make it fly." The linear catapult does not supply any lift. Lift is provided by the wing's angle of attack and by the wing's camber and airfoil. Camber is defined as the convexity of the curve of an airfoil from the leading edge to the trailing edge. Camber is usually designed into an airfoil to maximize its lift coefficient. Maximum lift is achieved at the stall angle. or just below the angle of attack that results in a stall. A typical lift coefficient is 1.5 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camber_(aerodynamics) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_coefficient

Thanks Edvar, I'm glad you see it that way. I am a fan of Dumont, I with he would get credit for the things he did, but nobody every brings that stuff up because they are so focused on trying to say he invented the airplane.

I get it. He was an emotional sort from what I can tell, but he was also a genius, very brave, and made some huge contributions that are often overlooked.

Seems to happen to Brazilians all the time for some reason. See Felipe Massa for example.

@@wingracer1614 Didn't happen to Senna

@@thekinginyellow1744 Actually you could argue that it did in 1989

@@wingracer1614 Fittipaldi 👍

Oh, thanks.

Thanks Bagle, it makes me happy to hear that these little tidbits of side info are interesting to people.

Denver was the son of a USAF pilot who set several records in a B-58 Hustler bomber, so flight was evidently in his blood. It was his love of aviation, sadly apparently coupled with inattention to safety detail (see the wikipedia article on Denver) that killed him.

@@Ensign_Cthulhu I knew he flew his own planes and I remember him dying in a plane crash, I just never knew he went so far as to fly a replica of the Wright Flyer. I'll check that Wiki article out, thanks for the info.

I'm leaving on a Wright's plane Don't know when I'll be back again

@@Ensign_CthulhuJohn Denver was flying an experimental and ran out of fuel that’s what I heard.

Mr. Whitehead, congratulations on your non recorded victories. You, and other test pilots or aviators on the leading edge never get enough credit.

@ray whitehead, hope you’ve discovered the excellent KZfaq channel of fellow naval aviator, Ward Carroll. He just got done interviewing pals at the Tailhook convention to share a few tales. Maybe you two could get together and publish a few unofficial aviation firsts, sure we’d love to hear them!

Exactly.

I know, right?

Hmm, I hadn't considered that, but I'm afraid you may be correct. It fits a pattern I see.

I have found that the opposite of the cliche true: "Never attribute to stupidity, that which is adequately explained through malice." The original cliche of dismissing any notion of malice is too often the escape of the cowardly. Pardon the presumption, but I think Greg has been well aware of the possibility that the misrepresentations are intentional, rather than innocent "mistakes". That the actors are well aware that their arguments are in bad faith. The same has been true of many such lies in aviation history. One of the more famous ones involve the lies about the Moon Landing being "faked". What's important about these lies is to duly recorded and repeatedly plastered on the people who trumpeted them. Even now, everyone from former Jewish Nomenklatura to Japanese Aeronautical engineers are trying to foist their slander on the shoulders of a single American engineer of all things - eager to pretend they were victims rather than perpetrators. The attempts to sully the achievement of the Moon Landings were mostly foreign in origin and drive in worldwide media, academia, and yes professional culture (even American engineers and pilots disgraced themselves and sold out their country by shrinking back at the accusations of their supposed foreign "colleagues", rather than turning their backs on these ). They know that to continue pumping out new Lies, their old Lies need to be forgotten or swept away - like a Global Cooling/Warming/Change Con-Artist hoping the new generation never learns of their long, unbroken record of failed predictions, prognostications and deceptions. Thus the importance of histriography; to record not just the original history and how its telling changes over time, but also the LIES about history and how THEY change over time. It is important to remember the Truth - and those who were Wright. The flip-side is that it is also important to remember the Lies - and the Liars.

I didn't believe you until I had a run in with a group dedicated to "disproving" the brothers. Yes, they exist. They lie through their teeth and pretend to have all the reason. May God help their souls.

Man I sure have run into that a lot over the years. You can't even mention the Bell X1 on some comment sections.

aCtIvE mAlIcE

Really? I mean, I could do that easily enough.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yes please, such an amazing phase of aviation; where seaplanes where the fastest thing around, and something like the Piaggio P.7 seemed like a good idea.

Absolutely! So much innovation out of that era carried into WW2. I'd argue that going further and covering all the major air racing events of the inter-war years would be a fascinating topic.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Schneider cup content would be amazing!

Only a very strong human cyclist. Consider the fact that the AC75 yachts need 6 to 8 men just to produce some power to operate them. A about 2hp engine would give more power easily.

@@hurri7720 Yes, by definition, 1 hp is 745.7 watts, so 2hp = 1491.4 watts

Continous 200w/85kg mass = realistic 35kph in aerodynamic position riding on a flat plane. . No human powered flying machine works in this power enveloppe.

Hey there fellow aviation nerds - I am one of you and also a former amateur bicycle racer from the times of power meters. Watt output is heavily tied to body size and weight. It’s very similar to gasoline engines. More displacement is analogous to more muscle and a larger frame. Elite male cyclists with height and weight above average, along with thorough conditioning can produce a steady 300 watts or more for as long as 30 minutes. Cycling usually does allow for periods of rest and recovery, so using a long flat course like a triathlete would use might give the best comparison to aircraft engines. 800+ watts output is what would be measured in a sprint or burst of effort. Once again muscle mass is heavily in play. The most powerful sprinters are track racers and road race sprint specialists. The best professionals can ride over 100 miles continuously in a group, and produce 1600+ watts for several seconds at the end.

The guy that flew a human powered plane across the English channel radioed to his crew about half way across that he just couldn't go on. They told him about all the sharks and he made it!

Easy to make a junk one, it's really freaking difficult to make a good one but it can be done. I've never made one from scratch but in my RC boat days I did a lot of prop modifying. Even had little jigs for precisely measuring pitch at every point of the blade.

@@wingracer1614 Yeah I think we'll give it a go, but keep the store-bought one at hand "just for reference" (meaning if ours doesn't work well, in goes the plastic part) - a luxury that the Wrights literally didn't have; all the "store bought" ones which the most intelligent and knowledgable experts on the subject had developed so far, were garbage.

@@decnet100 Making one yourself is often also a lot of fun and probably more fun than making a pre fabricated one.

@@martijn9568 Cheers, will try :) Not sure if from brass or plastic though. Definitely filing will be involved :)

@@decnet100 Serious question... Could you 3D print a prop for an RC boat? It might take some of the fun out of "making" one, but it would be a cheap way to try a few different designs.

Hey! Watch your mouth, my mother's a bicycle mechanic.

If the Wrights hadn't built their own airplane, do you really think nobody else in the rest of the world could have figured out controlled flight? Hundreds of people were working on it and the problem would have eventually been solved. The Wrights solved it in their own way. But nobody else used their layout or control system because it really wasn't very good.

@@PDZ1122If it was very good how come they had control when other people couldn’t do it.

​@@PDZ1122fokker eindecker

My grandfather was a highschool graduate in 1918. I invite anyone to look up what was required to be a highschool graduate back then. Education in the US has seriously gone downhill in the last 100 years. Highschool was no joke back then.

Same

always

Never disappointed.

It was a pretty safe bet, lol. The dude delivers.

11 Frenchmen disagree apparently

'Dayton - A graveyard with streetlights.' ;-)

Thanks, I'm having fun making it.

I remember the control line models.

True, and Maxim was quite early too, flew several hundred ft in 1894 with three persons aboard the aeroplane, I believe, although without much control, and certainly not intended. Wilbur Wright even credited Maxim with the first powered flight.

It was usually needed in Dayton. When you need the "assistance" of a 15 mph+ headwind and the wind is only 10 mph, the extra 6 mph of forward thrust provided by the catapult is needed to get the Flyer airborne. The catapult is a way to shorten the wooden rail runway.

中井久夫 : "Something about the 14 Bis is just beautiful." I think box kites are beautiful and box kite wings with dihedral are extremely stable and practical. It is interesting that Hargrave did not stick with his box kite design. He proved that adding camber to the surfaces of the kite doubled their lift and that there was enough lift with multiple celular wing kites to suspend a man above the ground. The Voisin company that built the box kite winged float plane glider added a lot of wire and change the look of the box kite. The airframe that he gave to Santos Dumont lacked a motor and a refined control system. "Santos Dumont's airframe was built by Voisin and was based on his speedboat towed box-kite winged pontoon glider. It had a fix box kite in the front. Dumont could have specified that he wanted to add pilot control to the forward box kite. I have found no information on that. It may have been intentionally hidden. The flight of the modernized Bis 14 look alike replica was also a thing of beauty. Its flight in the hands of a pilot with 1000's of hours in the air would not be he same as a pilot with less than 15 min. of fight training. It was much smoother and the control surfaces seemed to actually work. Still Santos Dumont's flights were still a thing of beauty to the spectators at the game field. References: Bennet Cup at 1909 & 1910 Aviation Weeks Santos Dumont in his Demoiselle set a speed & distance record (5 miles in 5 min.) after he installed a modern French integral prop but he was a no show at both Aviation weeks. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Bennett_Trophy_(aeroplanes) Invited to discuss @Greg's airplanes and Automobiles @gbooth @Solo Renegade, @Mark Hornea, @Pease, @ECBrazil\o/, @h lynn keith, @SanPol, @j b, @Jindle Spong,

Yes it does. Customs causes far more problems for law abiding businesses in the United States than Pablo Escobar ever did. I don't even want to get started going down that road right now.

Thanks Dennis, I didn't know the difference between oars and paddles. I learn something new every day.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles No worries at all, since I learn a couple dozen things per video of yours, I am still much in your debt. Cheers!

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles There are some very good pictures of the Antionette 50 hp engine with its transmission and paddle props. See Wikipedia. With 50 hp available rather than 8-16 hp, the props don't have to be particularly efficient. The Brazilian look alike replica went back to a lower 25 hp. engine because with a modern prop, the extra horsepower was not needed. With the Demoiselle airframe, it was not as easy to add a 50 hp engine but Santos Dumont did it. It was not successful. The Demoiselle did not fly until it added a modern French airfoil prop in 1909. It still did not fly well enough for Santos Dumont to enter it into the circular flight competition or the Week of Aviation competitions in 1909 and 1910. Invited to discuss @Greg's airplanes and Automobiles @GBooth @Solo Renegade, @Mark Hornea, @Pease, @ECBrazil\o/, @h lynn keith, @SanPol, @j b, @Jindle Spong,

This gets into a classic chicken or the egg question perhaps. It seems to me more like the fact the Wrights managed to hold onto their status inevitably attracts detraction. There are enough stories of other inventive individuals being cheated out of credit, to some degree or another, by people with more money and connections. The situation with the Wrights looks at least as much like a case where many others did try to cheat them, and may have succeeded if the brothers had been less careful and protective.

@@cosmoscoronado8862 It's a tough question: On the hand, early aircraft manufacture was a very tough business, so you can understand the Wrights and their business partners trying to get money from their patent. You can also understand those who tried to avoid paying the Wrights a percentage by undermining their claims. The Wrights' secretiveness made that easier. The French made more progress because they developed good rotary engines, but also because their inventors weren't tied up in the courts.

In the grand scheme of history the Wright brothers count as a "score one for the little guy(s)" to me. The skills and talents for attaining and holding onto wealth are typically synonymous with exploiting the more specific skills and talents of others. Just the way it is. So again, at least the Wright brothers held onto the moral victory, which doesn't always happen. This is obviously why I get rather protective myself, in response to attacks on that legacy.

@@cosmoscoronado8862 I think there is an untold story here. The Wrights' had sold a glider and a Wright Flyer to Ernest Archdeacon and Capt. Ferber (his test pilot). Archdeacon, C and Weiner were members of the syndicate that advanced over $15,000 to the Wrights which made it possible for the Wrights to go to Europe to help set up the engine and airframe companies they would need to built the Wright Model A and a replica of the 1906 Dayton upright 4 engine. Many Brazilians think they came to steal from Santos Dumont. They argue the Flyer could not fly until they installed a French built engine similar to the Antoinette V8.

@@eweidenh The Wright's "secretiveness"? I think this video shows well that the Wright openness and display of build techniques and open patents let everyone else understand how to do things and led to modern powered flight. After the Wrights there was real engineering.