Friday, June 14, 2013

The Little Immigrant Who Didn't: Glenn Curtiss' Failed Attempt to Fight the Wright's Flight

A little over a week ago the Connecticut State Legislature passed a bill recognizing one of their residents, Gustave Whitehead, as being the first to invent and fly a heavier-than-air aircraft.  First as in "before the Wright Brothers."

Complete and utter nonsense.  Absolutely not possible.  And here's why:

The Wrights were not the only ones interested in heavier-than-air aircraft (balloons using hot air or light gas such as hydrogen had existed for over a century.  These flew using the principal that their total volume weighed less than an identical volume composed of atmospheric air and thus were termed "lighter-than-air aircraft").  Hundreds of scientists, engineers, and tinkerers had been working on the problem for decades.  The ones that were really serious recognized that flight is all about generating lift and used formal engineering analysis on their designs to maximize lift while minimizing drag.  Unfortunately, almost everyone built upon the work of John Smeaton, a brilliant and well-respected 18th century engineer who, among other things, developed an equation for calculating lift.  The problem was that Smeaton's equation included a constant coefficient which happened to be wrong.  Not just a little bit wrong at the sixth decimal place but off by a whopping 33%.  It was this mistake which doomed design after design to failure- including many of the Wright Brothers early gliders.  They were the first ones to suspect something was wrong with the equation and so they were the first ones to build a wind tunnel to experimentally test the equation and discover the correct coefficient value.  So, there at the dawn of flight, the Wrights were the only ones using the right equation to design an airfoil.

The wind tunnel and their methodical and empirical scientific discovery of the correct equation for lift wasn't the only innovation necessary to build an airplane.  Arguably more critical than wing design is propulsion design.  In order to generate lift a wing also generates drag and the engine of the airplane must be powerful enough to completely overcome that drag.  Remember that this was at the dawn of not only aviation but automobiles and internal combustion engines as well.  Engines had recently been developed which could provide the necessary horsepower to allow an airplane to fly- but they were made out of cast iron, steel, and bronze and weighed hundreds of pounds.  Good enough for automobiles, they were just too heavy to get off the ground.  So the Wrights gave the task of creating a suitable engine to one of the employees in their bike shop, Charles Edward Taylor.  Mentored by the Wrights, Taylor also applied scientific and engineering analysis to the problem and realized that a relatively new metal had the strength-to-weight properties necessary: Aluminum.  While aluminum had been known as a metal for over a century the lack of a suitable refining process made it as valuable as gold for most of its history.  It had come on the market as a cost-effective building material only ten years before the Wright Brother's first flight.  So, when Taylor provided the Wright with that first engine which produced 12HP but weighed only 150 pounds, the brothers possessed the only engine in the world with a power-to-weight ratio sufficient to enable an airplane to fly.

Having the right engine is only half of the propulsion problem, though- the engine still needs to apply its power to flight.  The Wrights chose to use two counter-rotating propellers hand-carved from wood.  Initially they thought to adapt tried-and-true marine propellers (screws) to the task but swiftly realized that wouldn't work because of the vastly different densities of the working mediums (water vs. air).  A few weeks of research uncovered that no one had theretofore developed a good propeller for use in air.  They would (again) be breaking new ground.  After considering the problem the brothers realized that the correct approach was to think of the propeller as a set of rotating wings.  They had already tested over forty different airfoil designs in their wind tunnel so they selected one which would maximize efficiency as a propeller.  And it worked- when they were done their props developed an astonishing 70% efficiency (70% of the engine's output went to propel the aircraft).  That was over double the efficiency of the propellers used by all the other airplane inventors of the time.  Even today, with computational fluid dynamics, CAD, and wind tunnel testing wooden propellers have only reached 85% efficiency.

So, to summarize, the Wrights were the only people in the world who possessed an equation of lift with the correct coefficient, the only ones who had used this equation in a wind tunnel to develop adequate airfoil designs, the only ones who possessed an engine with a sufficient power-to-weight ratio, and the only ones with an efficient propeller for the engine to drive.  Without all of these key ingredients it would be impossible for anyone to build an airplane capable of flight.

So what about Whitehead?  He had a wood-and-fabric aircraft (that decades later he claimed was really aluminum and fabric) that to the untrained eye looked kind of like the Wright Flyer.  He claimed to have flown it.  Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen him fly.  Why would anyone lie?  The answer is simple:  They were paid.  The problem with the Wright's numerous inventions related to flight was that they patented them, and expected to be paid licensing fees by aircraft manufacturers.  One of these early aviation pioneers was Glenn Curtiss who absolutely hated having to pay royalties to the Wrights- so he didn't, forcing the Wrights to sue for patent infringement.  Curtiss then began a long legal campaign to break the Wright's patents, and the main tactic for breaking any patent is to present what is known as "prior art."  In other words, prove that someone else invented the item prior to the patent holder.  This was big business, and Curtiss' company had plenty of bribe money- some of which found its way into the pocket of one Albert Zahm, consultant at the Smithsonian Aerodynamical Laboratory and later Chief Engineer at Curtiss.  During one of the patent lawsuit trials Orville Wright managed to thoroughly (and publicly) discredit Zahm, which Zahm never forgave.  He spent the next forty years writing articles trying to discredit the Wrights, and even offered a bounty paid out of his own pocket for any proof that Whitehead flew.  Other than a single eyewitness account, none was ever tendered.  Indeed, Curtiss himself gave up on the Whitehead story as ridiculous and pursued other avenues.

Whitehead was certainly a visionary- he recognized aviation as a very important future industry.  And he certainly put a lot of time, effort, and money into inventing an airplane.  Unfortunately he lacked the scientific rigor and genius possessed by two young men in Dayton, Ohio, and all of the necessary elements of flight which they alone possessed.  Whitehead never got off the ground in any of the many airplanes which he built, and thus joined the ranks of the many hundreds of scientists, engineers, and garage tinkerers who didn't invent the airplane.

For a somewhat different take on the Whitehead story, take a look at: Who Was First?


6 comments:

  1. The Connecticut Assembly's decision is based on my research, which was peer-reviewed and confirmed earlier this year. I’ve posted it here: www.gustave-whitehead.com. (Readers interested in the new findings will find more of “a different take” there than at the Wright website to which you refer them.)

    Being a "geek" usually involves "complete and utter" attention to the facts. Have you examined them?

    You write, “to the untrained eye” the Whitehead plane “looked kind of like the Wright Flyer”. Actually, Whitehead’s wing was an exact replica of the one Otto Lilienthal used to provably make almost 2,500 controlled glides up to 1896. So it’s pretty clear, Whitehead had an airworthy wing – and that his monoplane didn’t look anything like the Wrights’ biplane.
    (Fact-Check: You cite CFD-analysis. Did you know, every mathematical, CFD, and wind-tunnel analysis of the 1903 Wright Flyer shows it was unairworthy? No true model or replica of it has ever flown successfully – not to be confused with the later versions. That might interest a scientist.)

    Whitehead was trained as an engine-builder at M.A.N.. In 1901, he was already selling lightweight engines to airship-builders. The acetylene engine he used to fly in 1901 was written up twice in the French peer journal, “L,Acétylène”. It had a much better power-to-weight ratio than the Wrights’ engine. This was confirmed by Wilbur Wright himself in a July 4, 1901 letter to Octave Chanute. It was also confirmed by the man who later became President Wilson’s Advisor for Aeronautics, Charles Wittemann. In 1908, Wittemann personally examined Whitehead’s 1901 engine and swore, under oath, that it was airworthy. So his engine was the best of its time too.
    (Fact-Check: J. Carpenter writes, the Wright engine was simply a Pope-Toledo automobile engine which had been given an aluminum block. Charles Taylor’s only prior engine experience had been to repair one car – not much more could have been expected of him.)

    You assert, there was only one witness of Whitehead flying. Actually, there were 17 (14 of them, under oath).
    (Fact-Check: of the witnesses to the 1st 1903 powered flight of the Wrights, only two made written statements. Daniels said the plane took off from the slope of a sand dune and flew toward the beach below head height. The other witness wrote, he saw what Daniels saw, i.e. he made no statement of his own. That’s what that famous photo shows. A hillside launch into a 27mph headwind gliding down to MSL in ground effect – I’m not making this up.). Neither witness testified under oath.

    So, there you have it! Once again, facts are getting in the way of another religious-type legend!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His facts in the way of your legend, you mean? Half history, half myth?

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Sons of Haphaestus alias geeks:
    Your article certainly is impressive sounding and to those who are not up on aeronautical history, very convincing. But mostly wrong and outdated. One of your assertions is that the Wrights found that Lilienthal's tables on lift were wrong. However, the Wrights were mistaken.
    The brothers didn't understand that the Lilienthal tables applied to a different type of wing from theirs. True, they subsequently did their wind tunnel tests, created their tables of lift for various wing shapes, and supposedly hit on an airfoil that they thought would work. But in 1903 their airfoil, engine, and propellors weren't enough to get them off the ground. They needed the assistance of a hill and a 26-27 mph headwind for their short, uncontrolled mostly hops, all that ended in crashes or pilot's error. (According to witnesses, their statement that they took off from level ground appears to be untrue.) And wind tunnel tests today at Cal Tech using measurements taken from the Wright flyer at the Smithsonian have proven that the 1903 Wright airfoil is wrong. But who needed it, anyway? As late as 1914, everyone, including Glenn Curtiss, was building planes that flew just fine without the Wrights' tables and calculations. Corroborating that conclusion is a statement in a NY Times article in 1914 by Brewer, the Wrights' friend, that Orville Wright was not well enough protected by patents to release the tables to the public. And so the tables weren't published until much, much later. See McFarland.
    Your statement that the Wrights were the first to suspect that the Smeaton coefficient was wrong is entirely untrue as well. Please see Chanute's book, Progress in Flying Machines, published 1894, in which he states that the Smeaton coefficient will probably have to be revised. The Wrights quite obviously studied that book. Also check Anderson , A History of Aerodynamics, 1997, who states that Langley measured the value of Smeaton's within 3% of the true value. Langley antedated the Wrights. Do you need more references?
    Your last paragraphs are so full of erroneous conclusions that I can't begin to address them in a short statement. You obviously haven't read about Whitehead's engines. You are totally unaware of Manly's engine. Curtiss didn't need to "bribe" Dr. Zahm.
    Please go back to the books, geeks!













    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong, and also wrong. You sound impressive, until facts are applied.

      Delete
  4. Part 1 of the response to John Brown is available.

    ReplyDelete