First Flight: The Race to Create the World's First Flying Machine - Full Documentary

[@everychordever4339]

The Wright's claim is not "first flight" nor "first powered flight", it is "first controlled powered flight". The distinction is important, and missed in this video.

[@nimueh4298]

I was thinking of the same thing, first controlled flight.

[@garrington120]

The Wrights built and launched powered gliders between1903 and 1907 , incapable of taking off without a rail ,gantry and heavy counterweight catapult!!! No wheeled undercarriage .so NOT flight under its own power . Reply

[@trijezdci4588]

And if Gustav Whitehead did indeed fly his No.21 airplane in 1901, how would that not have been "controlled powered flight" prior to the Wrights and thereby invalidating their claim.

[@rickywooltorton436]

Absolutely correct. The first controlled powered flights, including figures of 8s. There are many categories in the history of flights.

[@everychordever4339]

@@trijezdci4588 He couldn't turn

[@davidfenwick9577]

There is another aviator that could have very well been the first to fly from New zealand .. his name was Richard pierce.. he built his own 2 cylinder engine and was the first to use actual ailerons.. there were witnesses that say he first flew in march 1902 18 months before the Wright brothers.

[@patrichausammann]

I think his correct name was Richard William Pearse.

[@scyz2807]

That's still not before Whitehead.

[@patrichausammann]

@@scyz2807 Yes, that's true.

[@haydengoodall6767]

The aircraft named the Manurewa.

[@patrichausammann]

@@haydengoodall6767 What a beautiful name. If I transcribe it correctly, it means something like "man's/humanity's dream".

[@steinskotmyr2194]

One question remains. Even if the Wright brothers had a backup in their bicycle shop, they were practically unfunded. So were Mr. Weisskopf. So why did not Mr. Weisskopf build on his success like the Wrights. If the flight had been such a success I’m sure he hadn’t been closed out from that workshop. And why did not Mr. Santos-Dumont mention him, or even visit Mr. Weisskopf? ( I have not studied this story in detail so I could be wrong, but these points just popped up in my mind)

[@nickwinn7812]

Engineering success does not guarantee business success. Many a brilliant engineer has failed to capitalise his achievements and many less technically talented folk have become rich by marketing their modest achievements in a better way. Your question has no bearing on who acieved powered flight first - only on who got rich from it!

[@pieterbezuidenhout2741]

@@nickwinn7812 Absolutely agree on your statement here. Look at Tesla's demise and sure there will be hundreds others whom will just 'accept' being ROBBED of their 'place in the sun'.

[@Foxpilot]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/injSnmOrnrxkaZI

[@SoloPilot6]

There was no practical use for the airplane until the 1910s. They were toys. They had no cargo-carrying capacity, short range, low service ceiling, and unreliable engines, so little to entice commercial investors. Go look at the only long-distance journey ever of a Wright Flyer, when in 1911 -- a decade after Whitehead went broke -- a modified Wright Model B flew coast-to-coast across the Continental US . . .in a mere two months and three weeks. To make this flight, the Vin Fiz (named after the sponsor, a soda pop brand) needed a special railroad train to carry spare parts and ground crew. And the plane which landed in Long Beach only had a dozen or so parts that had taken off from Brooklyn, because of the damage taken in 75 crashes along the way. Until World War I spurred aviation development (initially as spotter planes), there was little investment in airplanes outside of individual enthusiasts and a handful of clubs.

[@PauloPereira-jj4jv]

Nobody ever heard of him or the Wright brothers in Europe. In fact, not even in US. Although I consider Dumont a genius and a much more remarkable character than the two Americans (Dumont was one of the greatest personalities of his time and a regular presence in the The NY Times headlines), I can not ignore the achievements of Whitehead from now on.

[@Robert-pg2id]

Wonderful, wonderful video and informative record about Gustave Whitehead's work and successes! Wonderful video! I would like to propose a Museum built in Bridgeport Connecticut to Whitehead's achievements. I'm sure the officials in Bavaria would be honored to assist and possibly fund part of the project!

[@MIKEPSYCHE]

#Pittsburgh1stinflight

[@paulpiacentini]

Excellent. Thank you.

[@yorinov2001]

One thing of interest, at 13:10 they show fitting the working, replica, original engines and propellers BUT it has never flown with them. In all the flying videos they are using modern, ultralight engines and propellers, also the airframe looks pretty authentic but has modifications needed to allow it to fly. they have yet to get one off the ground with an unmodified airframe and original, period engines and propellers. The same thing was done to the Langley plane (modified airframe) to "prove" it could fly.

[@Foxpilot]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/injSnmOrnrxkaZI

[@SoloPilot6]

Likewise, the only Wright Flyer replicas which have flown had modern engines of 35 HP or more (the original Taylor engine was 12 HP).

[@mahbriggs]

@@SoloPilot6 Incorrect!

[@yorinov2001]

@@SoloPilot6re is no dispute that the Wrights flew in 1903. The modern replicas are to better understand the flyer, whereas they are trying to prove Whitehead's machine was capable of flight in 1901 and for that they need a replica accurate to the original. those modern engines/propellers are NOT equivalent. the replica is using 2 engines @25hp each driving modern propellers, 50hp!

[@robdow6348]

@@SoloPilot6 The pictures prove otherwise. There was no rudder on Whiteheads object, so it couldn’t do controlled flight. The get factual KZbin video on this is a hoax.

[@jamesburnett7085]

I came across the Whitehead story after I became a history teacher. I became a believer in the validity of the Whitehead claim and passed it on to my high school students. I stand by that decision.

[@cardinalRG]

Did you teach your students that the claim for Whitehead is controversial, and that it is a minority view among historians?

[@kenthatfield4287]

Unless you had proof all you had were stories. You could merely have told your students that there was one lead over in Germany who was working on such things as aviation. Then you would have been telling the truth more so. But just guessing that you believed without actual proper evidence is a bit dangerous why because you are a teacher. I had an English teacher tell me one time that I spelled color wrong he marked me wrong on the word color. What's in England is spelled c o l o u r. It's also listed in the dictionary as both spellings. I don't have too much esteem for teachers especially over here in America. They don't even know how to spell

[@cardinalRG]

James Burnett --From your lack of response, then, I’ll assume that you don’t provide your students with an understanding that the claim for Whitehead is controversial, or that most experts disagree with it.

[@tedmoss]

@Vincent A. H. Steed Everyone wants to say that, it simply isn't true.

[@davekohlenberg8902]

@@cardinalRG try spelling jewellery.

[@martinishot]

I can't believe this self-propelled hang glider is taken seriously. Without actual aerodynamic lift such as what a very large soaring bird or Wright flyer achieves this is a blind alley in aviation.

[@1crazypj]

Self propelled hang gliders are incredibly common. I remember selling various single cylinder engines from crashed motorcycles to be added to hang gliders in the 1980's. (MZ 250 was particular favourite as it made about 25BHP and weighed less than 35lbs after transmission was cut off OK, the technology and design was well understood by then BUT the gliders Whitehead was building were also well understood in the 1890's and had made thousands of successful flights. I think the most telling thing is NONE of the original Wright Flyer replicas have made a flight to equal the claimed distance.

[@martinishot]

@@1crazypj Whiteheads self-propelled hang glider and for that matter any self-propelled hang glider is a blind alley in aviation. it taught us nothing really except I guess how to be a hobbyist in the 20th and 21st centuries with this type of light aircraft. meanwhile there is absolutely no difference between the Wright brothers wing design and propeller design and what your average Cessna entry level is using right now. competitors overnight dropped all their designs and copied the right wing and propeller immediately. Nobody is attempting a replica of the white outline so far as I know without discarding its propeller for the Wright brothers design and making substantial changes to its wing.

[@gowdsake7103]

Wow thats as ignorant as the Smithsonian

[@martinishot]

@@gowdsake7103 did you notice my comment did not begin and end with I can't believe this self-propelled hang glider is taken seriously? Did you notice I explained my rationale? What a lazy reply.

[@lordofthemound3890]

@@martinishotLast I checked, the bendable-wing aileron was a design dead-end also.

[@johnterran9327]

I always find it interesting that when inventions are being deveoped that if you investigate them, there are usually more than one person trying to be first, or sucsessful. The plane, car, telephone, radio, television, just to name a few. Great presentation.

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

Yep often multiple people come to very similar designs totally unaware of the others. Sometime the first beats the rest by a day or so.

[@10minutesusa]

Well I'm just going to have to build a Whitehead #21 and see if it fly's. Then post video of it flying here on you tube.

[@tedmoss]

Have at it.

[@neoliberalerneandertaler9347]

Ok

[@michaelkaiser4674]

ride on my friend.

[@Robert-pg2id]

Congrats! Both replicas of Whiteheads plane flew very well!! Both the one housed in Bridgeport Connecticut and in the Whitehead Museum in Germany. !!!!

[@nathanjasper512]

​@@Robert-pg2idNo. They barely got off the ground and were incapable of turning. And they had modern engines and props.

[@haroldland4620]

Great doco beautifully narrated

[@feman43]

There were several powered flights by inventors prior to the wrights "first flight". Hiram Maxim successfully flew a steam powered aircraft in the 1890's I believe. It did not have a pilot onboard so it did not "qualify" as a "first flight". That aircraft very well could have carried a man into the air had he pursued it which he didn't as apparently he felt the steam pwoerplant was inadequate. Whitehead more than likely did fly prior to the Wrights as did others. The distinction, as I understand, is that the Wrights held the contention of "first controllable flight". That being the first aircraft flight being truly controllable. The weight shift method employed by Lilinthal and Whitehead did not "qualify" by this definition. I think this is a fascinating story and well done. What the Wrights did was to bring the scientific method and engineering into common practice.

[@stevebett4947]

I think Wilbur's 4 th flight is incredible. The plane was next to impossible to fly and the NASA studies of the exact replica of the 1903 Wright Flyer conclude that everything had to be perfect for success. The exact replica failed to fly on 17Dec2003 mainly because the rain caused the engine to misfire and the lack of wind meant that it would not lift off. The minimalist design only had enough power to keep the plane from flipping backwards. It required a headwind in excess of 15 mph and a high air density. The importance of the first flight experiment was that it was successful enough to convince the Wrights that they were on the right track. When they built a similar design to continue their experiments in Dayton, they were discouraged by their lack of success. Dayton had very few windy days. Their solution was to built a derrick catapult. It supplied the equivalent of another 6 hp. This was usually enough when everything else worked to start having successful flights. Whitehead claims his flights were controllable. I think his word was navigable. He could easily turn the the Lilienthal winged prototype No. 21 in the pilots desired direction. In one story, he did it by shifting his weight. In another he achieved directional control by speeding up one prop and slowing down the other. In another story, he talked about having a hidden rudder under the bird like tail. The stories can be found at wright-brothers.c0m. I will probably add one of the stories in Whitehead's own words. Few will find the stories credible.

[@EF-fc4du]

Whitehead wasn't “flying” gliders or powered airplanes. The machine was pulled aloft and steered by a man running along the ground and pulling a rope, which is different from successfully flying an airplane.

[@stevebett4947]

One of Whitehead's stories which probably has a kernel of truth is that he and his fireman or stoker flew a steam powered prototype (not the No. 21) and crashed into a building at a specific address. The fans of Whitehead never seem to have time to run down any evidence that might make one of his stories appear to be more plausible. Maxim's craft was probably large because it was difficult to make a light weight steam engine. @Mark Wood @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1

[@furripupau]

@@stevebett4947 IIRC the location where this story is said to have happened, shows that the flight path would've taken a descending altitude the entire distance from the launch site to the claimed crashed site. Basically, they launched the plane from the top of a hill, and the street they followed runs downhill toward a row of buildings, where they crashed. The story is more believable when you look at the location and realize they could've glided the whole way, the steam powerplant doing little to nothing to keep them from losing altitude, and at no point gaining altitude since the building they hit was lower than the launch site.

[@stevebett4947]

@@furripupau "They could have glided the whole way" The described flight was downhill. However, if the steam engine required a boiler and an assistant to stoke it, it would be too heavy to glide. The flying machine was not the No. 21 but an earlier glider. None of the reporters were witnesses of the flight. The sole source is Whitehead. There may be a grain of truth in the story. Perhaps he crashed a glider prototype. Have you found one or more of the newspaper stories? @feman43

[@robertscheinost179]

A superb documentary! Thanks for setting the record straight, Kudos to John Brown for getting to the bottom of this. I have known about the first flight in 1901 by Gustav Whitehead for 40+ years. History is often not what the truth is. Period. It makes you wonder about what else is a falsehood, or "Created History" in the things we teach our children in school. The late actor Cliff Robertson was involved in trying to get to the truth concerning Gustav Whitehead at one time, if my memory serves me correctly. Yes, I am born and bred in Connecticut and proud of it. No doubt, if Gustav Whitehead's creation suddenly appeared in some dusty corner of a forgotten warehouse, the Smithsonian would claim that it was a fake. This is the premier Museum in the USA? Shame on you!

[@cardinalRG]

_"Yes, I am born and bred in Connecticut and proud of it."_ That statement is off-topic, and suggests a little bias on your part. Would you have the same view of this topic if you were born in Ohio, or Brazil, or New Zealand, or anywhere else?

[@mahbriggs]

And do you also belong to the Flat Earth Society?

[@karlbark]

I have known of Whitehead since I was a teenager (before the W.W.Web), and have no reason AT ALL to doubt it. In fact I also remember a Frenchman who flew over a river estuary (although I'm not sure how controlled that was). Also there was an Australian (New Zealander)? and other people (who were all trying). I have no reason to doubt the Whitehead flight. In fact I find it more truth-sounding (??...sorry about my english 😉) than the Wright's/Smithsonian version of the "truth" ❗

[@mahbriggs]

@karlbark I'm sorry to learn of your mental disability! The New Zealander was Richard Pearce. Even he acknowledged the primacy of the Wright's! I really hope you get the help you need!

[@cardinalRG]

@@karlbark --Have you researched any arguments that contradict the claims for Whitehead? Have you sought out that kind of balanced reckoning?

[@terryakuna66]

The question of a poor young man from Bavaria acquire the skills to produce an engine ... the same way a high school kid (Philo Taylor Farnsworth) came up with the concept for television. He was smart.

[@chuckoster8221]

Sorry,John Logie Baird was the inventor of television,farnsworth just came up with a better way of doing it.The concept was already there,Baird was the first to demonstrate it.

[@SoloPilot6]

@@chuckoster8221 You're both right. Baird's system was mechanical (an evolutionary dead end), Farnsworth invented the electronic television concept which everything evolved from.

[@indigohammer5732]

@@chuckoster8221Unless your telly has a giant rotating slotted metal disc in it, then, yes, Baird invented tv. He invented a principal which failed. Research in Russia and America had demonstrated electronic scanning tubes. The precursor to all CRT television

[@michaelbailey8729]

Nowt changes. Credit to them all in different ways. Great tribute to Gustav helping him out of total obscurity.

[@lcs3354]

Whitehead was also invited to demonstrate his airplane to the US military in 1908, and he still couldn't get it off the ground. That's 3 years after the Wright's threw the first practical airplane in a box and moved on to trying to sell it. Whitehead didn't make much progress over 9 years. That 9-year-old's statement was hilarious.

[@JohnKSedor]

Whatever you’re smoking, I would stop before it causes brain damage. Gustave Whitehead’s successes are numerous with documented witnesses. As early as 1899 there are newspaper accounts of Whitehead flights.

[@Robert-pg2id]

WHITEHEAD FLEW IN 1901 AND POSSIBLY AS EARLY AS 1899..!!! WHAT"S THE MATTER WITH YOU?

[@quentinhilpert9606]

1894 Sir Hiram Maxim made a airplane? that lifted off the ground and in fact broke the retraining rails trying to keep it from rising off the ground too far. Supposedly he shut down the planes (steam engine) when the retraining rails broke thus avoiding continued uncontrolled flight. The wright brothers managed CONTROLED flight. Lots of others got off the ground they just could not turn and come back to the place they started which the Wright Brothers did later in subsequent flights. Controlled flight

[@PauloPereira-jj4jv]

The idea was to be the first to fly, it did not matter if the flight was controlled or not. If you are the first to take off, then you were the pioneer: you did the first flight, although only in a straight line.

[@othmanskn]

Gustav made a controlled flight and even turned, unlike the Wright claimed, without any evidence in 1903. Gustav in 1901 were witnessed by journalists, mechanics, the public, competing newspapers. Oliver's evidence is only his own diary and clearly false accusations which is nonsense as evidence. Oliver accused Gustav as an unskilled engine manufacturer, contrary to all evidences. Only 2 quoted alleged witnesses that clearly stated that they did not witness anything, just accusing people and other witnesses without a single shred of evidence.

[@deepseadirt1]

@@PauloPereira-jj4jv So based on that nonsense, and Whitehead had no control or experience in flying, Ader did the same thing in 1890, a hop into the air and it's not proven Whitehead even did that.

[@UguysRnuts]

The Wright's "controlled flight" wasn't so well controlled or Wilbur wouldn't have died in a crash.

[@quentinhilpert9606]

@@UguysRnuts Doesn't say much for the airplanes development. pilots are still dying in crashes. Otto Lilienthal the man everyone followed died in a crash.

[@mplsmark222]

If you visit the Wright exhibit at the air and space museum, you will learn there is a lot more to it than the Flyer. The brothers are credited with many things. These guys were not just tinkering with trial and error, they worked out their designs and constructed their machines in a very scientific manner. They build wind tunnels to test wing shapes ect. They credit the brothers for inventing aeronautical engineering for example, I really don’t care who gets credit for being “the first”, the Wrights were pivotal in the development of aviation. They built and sold the first airplanes owned be the US Military. A lot of inventions were created by building on the knowledge of those that came before. When Bell “invented” the telephone, he was working with materials and components made by others.

[@flybobbie1449]

All the wind tunnel work, yet never came up with the aerofoil shape.

[@Wallyworld30]

Check out "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" channel's latest video. He debunks the nonsense of Gustave Whitehead. Greg provides all the evidence and even offers $1000 reward to anyone that can provide evidence that Gustav Whitehead actually flew before the Wright Brothers.

[@PauloPereira-jj4jv]

Well, they tried to sell their "project of a flying machine" twice AFTER 1903. First to the US Army, and then to the French. When both required a test, the brothers declined. Why, if they had been flying since 1903? Meanwhile, in Europe, Dumont made his historic flight in 1906.

[@Brutaga]

Hmmm the Wright’s ability to be skilled in misleading everyone for the past hundred years, should also be mentioned

[@Wallyworld30]

@@Brutaga Check out the video that dropped yesterday on this subject on "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles". He breaks down the so called "evidence" and then offers $1k reward to anyone with proof anyone not named Wright Brothers invented powered controlled flight first. Gustave did build a 3 wing glider that flew when tied to a truck and was pulled and he susepects that's what the witnesses saw when they saw Gustav fly.

[@furripupau]

One thing this documentary glosses over, is *why* Orville made the Smithsonian sign an agreement promising that the Wright Flyer would always be the "first" airplane. The short story is this: In 1914, Glenn Curtiss, in his ongoing patent battle and feud with Orville Wright, got ahold of the 1903 Langley Aerodrome, dusted it off, and flew it - to prove the Wright Flyer was not the first airplane "capable" of controlled, powered flight. The Smithsonian then displayed the Aerodrome as the first airplane, and Curtiss felt he had made his point. But there was a problem: Curtiss had modified the Aerodrome, fitting new propellers, and strengthening the wings. Orville became aware of this, and quite rightly protested the Smithsonian's claim. After Curtiss died, the Smithsonian publicly admitted the Aerodrome had been modified in 1914, and was not "capable" of flight in its 1903 form. Orville then allowed that the Smithsonian could have the 1903 flyer, but only if they promised it would be the "first". That's why the agreement was made. This does however raise a question: Why did Curtiss not take Whitehead's design to make his point? Surely he knew of Whitehead's story, and Whitehead was still alive in 1914 (Langley had died in 1906). Given the epic proportions of the Curtiss vs. Wright feud, one would think that Curtiss would have gone with Whitehead's design to prove his point, if he thought it would work. It would be interesting to know if Curtiss ever contacted Whitehead.

[@martinishot]

Every competitor for first airplane to fly had less efficient propellers than the Wright flyer. So this business about the plane being retrofitted with different propellers is huge. During the development of the Wright flyer the Wrights learned lessons along the way, one of them being everybody's propellers were wrong. Likewise everybody had accepted a design for wings in their attempts that was a flawed design and it was not efficient enough.The Wrights need to be credited for the first correct propeller design and first correct wing design.That is why it was a big deal to Orville Wright. He could not tolerate a plane being called the first to fly that needed the Wright propeller to do so.

[@furripupau]

@@martinishot If we want to be pedantic, Hiram Maxim was the first to test propeller shapes for efficiency, and he had come to some of the same conclusions that the Wrights would come to a few years later. I'm not sure why his research on the subject was ignored, of it he kept it secret - it just seems very strange that he had tried and tested different designs (and his testing was quite sophisticated), and yet the results got little to no attention at the time. Aside from the Wrights, most pioneer aviators were lagging behind his designs more than a decade after his tests.

[@MORCOPOLO0817]

A rubber powered airplane achieves flight too. The Aerodrome was not a man carrying aircraft.

[@furripupau]

@@MORCOPOLO0817 The aerodrome was a piloted aircraft...

[@MORCOPOLO0817]

@@furripupau The successful flights were unmanned. The unsuccessful flight were manned.

[@stacysanders-w3e]

A Whitehead replica built over a hundred years later flew while being pulled by a car.

[@stevebett4947]

Have you found a video?

[@tismeagen684]

Excellent documentary, which raises many questions about documented history, honesty, money, and politics.

[@kentl7228]

There are no doubts. The Wright brothers were first. Every second country has their person that was first, including my own. The wind tunnel and wing warping. The Wright brothers showed their working aircraft all over the world. The others didn't.

[@mikepowell2776]

But not the original and not in 1903/4.

[@kentl7228]

@@mikepowell2776 For a nice coincidence, Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles just made a video explaining this well

[@jukkatakamaa7274]

@@kentl7228 ..too much fot Greg to handle ?

[@kentl7228]

@@jukkatakamaa7274 No. His video is logical and brings up more points than I can imagine. People seem to want a conspiracy, but the evidence for the Wright brothers is very convincing and the evidence for the others is very dubious. I am not from the USA and I could want my country to have been first with our own claim of before the Wright brothers, but it wasn't. What we wish and what is real are often different.

[@zerovalon6243]

You guys really had the Wright idea.

[@jamesb.9155]

I'm sticking with the Wright Brothers on this one!

[@PauloPereira-jj4jv]

Sorry for that.

[@jamesb.9155]

@@PauloPereira-jj4jv As if you actually 'know' anything about it.

[@1pcfred]

The Wrights had two things no one else did, the airfoil and control surfaces. That gave them powered heavier than air controlled flight. Which is the only useful variety of flight.

[@agauerm]

It was Santos Dumont

[@UguysRnuts]

@@agauerm It could have been. He certainly considered himself the inventor. Dumont was so wracked with guilt to see HIS invention used as a weapon of mass destruction he repeatedly attempted to kill himself and eventually succeeded. If he wasn't the inventor, he would have had no reason to do so

[@jesusmares7171]

Locks like this is pure distraccion . One simple observation of bright brothers let them know that was easy to fly

[@davidhewson1234]

Until this, I thought Wright brothers were the first !. Now there are others who compete. Fascinating. Thanks all. Dave

[@mahbriggs]

Compete in what? Certainly not the first powered controled flight!

[@jeffmoore9487]

@@mahbriggs You didn't find this vid convincing? Why not?

[@raymondjensen4603]

I wouldn't take this documentary on face value

[@jeffmoore9487]

@@raymondjensen4603 Nor should you take the Smithsonian Institute at their word.

[@LucidDreamer54321]

I'm completely convinced.

[@cornondajakob]

The Wright brothers were the first to succeed in a controlled, powered flight. All attempts before them had undesirable control.

[@gabrieldacunha4505]

Santos Dumont did it first

[@cornondajakob]

@gabrieldacunha4505 no, santos did it YEARS after the wrights

[@gabrieldacunha4505]

@@cornondajakob yeah, ok hahaha

[@gabrieldacunha4505]

@@cornondajakob santos didn't need a catapult to do so

[@cornondajakob]

@@gabrieldacunha4505 neither did the Wright brothers.

[@johnswift1736]

Title wrong. First flying machine was glider made by Sir George Cayley and flown by his coachman who hasn't been seen since running away.

[@Dackeldomteur]

Nein es war Otto Lilienthal der zuerst flog.

[@Kretschy1]

what about Richard William Pearse was a New Zealand farmer and inventor who performed pioneering aviation experiments. Witnesses interviewed many years afterward describe observing Pearse flying and landing a powered heavier-than-air machine on 31 March 1903, nine months before the Wright brothers flew.

[@favesongslist]

Richard Pearse's aircraft was far more advanced design using a 15 HP engine with flaps and aileron; rather than the 'Wing warping' of the Wright Brothers. Its propeller also had variable pitch blades.

[@kentl7228]

Why didn't he spread the news all over the world and repeat the flights in front of witnesses? I respect Pearse but the Wrights were first. George Welch being first for the sound barrier is more believable.

[@favesongslist]

@@kentl7228 The History Guy did a great video on Pearse, well worth a watch

[@kentl7228]

@@favesongslist Ok. Thanks.

[@gregthegroove]

So is this piece an opinion piece or is this historical fact? It’s a very well put together video. Extremely entertaining.

[@mahbriggs]

Just revisionist tale telling!

[@stevebett4947]

@@mahbriggs It does not read like it was written by a historian although one historian was featured who said he was waiting for the evidence. Nothing that Brown provided addressed the key issues. He readily accepted anything that supported his position as a pro-Whitehead advocate. The presentation was professionally done and interesting to watch..

[@mahbriggs]

@@stevebett4947 Professionally done, but utterly misleading!

[@stevebett4947]

@@mahbriggs Thanks for you comment. I agree.

[@JourneymanRandy]

Just what I have observed most of my life. History is very inaccurate and written by groups who are in control. Money and power do corrupt. The fact that the two brothers never continued improving and perfecting the airplane makes you think. The fact that they filled a patent and sued anyone who infringed. Why stop aviation? Great documentary.

[@othmanskn]

USPTO itself is corrupt to this day. That is why clearly illegal patents were even granted, while truly inventive patents not granted.

[@robertbolding4182]

One of them had teethknocked out by a hockey stick for three years didn't do anything. I didn't like women never married. Had one of three sisters live with them as adults. They were weirdos

[@raymondjensen4603]

Where did you get the idea, they never continued to develop the airplane..., that is just wrong. They spent four years after 1903 developing their flyer into a usable airplane. In 1908 they went to France and Germany and demonstrated the first practical airplane with the intent of building aircraft in Europe. The Europeans were barely flying..., these flights, that set records every day, just set them of fire. Orvile at the same time was competing for an army contract and his flights at fort Myer emptied the office buildings of people who never believed that flight was possible. Years later Wilber would compete with Glenn Curtius in New York and there is a picture of him flying around the statue of liberty. The Wrights set up a factory in Dayton and licensed European companies to build their planes. They started a flying school and put together an exhibition team. The first airplane to fly across the United States was a Wright plane (The Gin Fizz). The airplane that killed Charles Rolls, (of Rolls Royce) was a European Wright plane. What changed was when Wilber died in 1912. The brothers never liked business, they liked working on airplanes, so Orville sold the company to Curtis and put together a shop in Dayton so he could work on his ideas for the rest of his life. Money and power, you got the wrong guys.

[@1crazypj]

Yep, it's still '1492' even though the Vikings were first in America hundreds of years earlier. Columbus probably knew of this. Plus, the Egyptians knew about cocaine from South America thousands of years earlier

[@stevebett4947]

JM: History is inaccurate and written for those with money and power. SB: History is never incontestable. It can always be challenged by those who look at events from another angle. JM: The WBs never improved their 1908 design. SB: They improved it but never quick enough to be competitive with other aircraft companies. The history of the Wright Aircraft company, later Curtiss-Wright Aircraft is interesting but not readily available on the web. Invited to comment: @everychordever4339 @Marcos5pb ​ @stevebett4947 @allanrodzinski5850 @yorinov2001 @fmga @SoloPilot6 @spinolover124 @mahbriggs @yorinov2001 @davidfenwick9577 @10minutesusa @davidfenwick9577 @kentl7228 @mikepowell2776 @JourneymanRandy @jukkatakamaa7274 @gilbertcarrero5821

[@gintaras58]

This is the most interesting documentary I’ve ever been watching!!! What a quality of narration! How beutifully played the roles!!!! Jaw dropping movie! Better than detective or thriller story…a scientific history thriller indeed. Whatched twice. I was immediately willing to translate this documentary into Russian and my native Lithuanian. Then I tested captions in Russian. Those were perfect. The world has to know this. What a great job has been done by Mr. Brown!!! I am interested in aviation history but this story came to me as a big surprize. Thank you so much! I must go to suburbs of Munich to find this museum….to pay a tribute to an inventor….

[@stevebett4947]

The documentary is technically well done and interesting. While it includes videos of a few that dispute its general finding, the documentary is biased and one sided. Actors, not the actual witnesses, provide the testimonies. Most who are not familiar with the fact that the organizations and experts on history and aeronautical records discount the Randolf-Brown claimes and Whitehead stories might agree that Brown had proved that Whitehead was the first in flight.

[@DJ-nz6zw]

I always understood the Wrights were credited with the first motorized CONTROLLED flight, but see a previous comment mentions Richard Pierce. There were earlier documented motorized flights, for example, Hiram Maxim's well documented 1894 flight that proved flight was possible, but had no directional control. Everyone builds on others' achievements, but someone gets credit, sometimes a bit underhandedly, but we'll never know every detail or their consequences.

[@SoloPilot6]

"Controlled" flight is defined as flying at a stable heading, altitude and attitude, then making turns, climbs and dives to stable flight at new intended headings and altitudes. The Wrights didn't manage this until 1905, according to Wilbur's journal, which describes having made their first flight in a complete circle.

[@voornaam3191]

Wow, the Wright brothers did not build a vertical take off jet, so they sucked. Is that what you imply? Do you have any idea how these "twist the wings a bit, for we don't have ailerons yet" worked? Shure you doubt the word "controlled", by modern standards those contraptions were scary. Better avoid rough weather. Stability is one thing, getting flipped upside down is not funny. Without an emergency chute. These men still had to discover stalls and spins. Brrrr.

[@mahbriggs]

@SoloPilot6 But they had demonstrated a controlled flight before that time. Something no one else had! They had exhibited the ability to turn without losing control, something no one else could do!

[@Glicksman1]

The Wright Brothers flew in a circle at an altitude higher than ground effect for the first time on September 20, 1904 at Huffman Prairie, Ohio. No one had done this before them. This event was the true first flight of an airplane.

[@SoloPilot6]

@@Glicksman1 1904 instead of 1905 (I read the journal entry some years ago, so blame faulty memory). Still months after the first bunny hop. You BELIEVE that no one had done this before. I don't know one way or the other, but if this is your criteria for "first flight," it certainly is closer than the bunny hop. One thing that Wright fans can't answer, though, is why, over the 8 years that he lived after the bunny hop, Wilbur never developed the Flyer beyond the primitive level -- within 5 years, the Flyer was obsolete. This smacks of lack of any inspiration of his own, as does his use of design work found in the publications he had bought years earlier.

[@a1sloth1]

Keep up the research. If Whitehead made a powered flight before the Write brothers he should be credited with his accomplishments. Changing history is necessary from time to time as new information comes to light. There may be other inventors who were ahead of the Wrights and Whitehead. They too should be brought to light as information becomes available.

[@wbeaty]

Not "powered flight." A straight-line hop is not a demonstration of an airplane. "First airplane" is the real trick, capable of bank-turns and flying in circles, landing where desired, staying up there as long you want (fuel allowing.) etc., etc. Langley did powered-hops before the Wrights. But he never had an actual airplane, a vehicle which a pilot could fly, in the modern sense.

[@billakers6082]

Changing history seems to be the rage nowadays.

[@arthurguilfoil1082]

@@billakers6082 In this country it's the new thing to do. Erase history.

[@favesongslist]

​@@wbeaty Richard Pearse's March 1903 aircraft was far more advanced design using a 15 HP engine with flaps and aileron; rather than the 'Wing warping' of the Wright Brothers. Its propeller also had variable pitch blades.

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

Even if this was proven beyond all doubt the yanks would never allow this to become accepted as historical fact bro.

[@michaelboyko5024]

Anyhow this is an interesting detailed and profound professional video, thanks a lot! I've watched with real pleasure and interest.

[@raymondjensen4603]

It was well done but they trampled over the truth. Not very trustworthy

[@davi_lemos]

What about Alberto Santos Dumont? He is regarded by many as the true first plane inventor, since his plane could take off and land without assistance.

[@cardinalRG]

If the video doesn't satisfy you, then feel free to make your own argument about Santos-Dumont. This is an open forum.

[@mahbriggs]

Another point in favor of the Wright's, is that they invented modern propeller design. They realized it was a rotating wing. Look at contemporary propeller designs before the Wright's, they look like primitive ship propellers, not proper air foils!

[@macwilliambasilio4128]

Sure, and the jet engine too...

[@mahbriggs]

@@macwilliambasilio4128 ?? What are you talking about?

[@jannespor8178]

@@nzsaltflatsracer8054 Do you have a photograph of that exact machine?

[@glenturney4750]

From the look of Whiteheads plane design, I don't see any aileron type of controls for 'roll', nor does it have a rudder, that I see, meaning it only has 1 axes: 'Pitch',, to go up and down. The Wright Brothers designed their plane to have 3 axes, meaning; 'Roll',, 'Pitch' and 'Yaw'. It is THEIR design that is more SAFER to fly in a CONTROLLED FLIGHT. Whitehead was JUST LUCKY that he made ANY flight, IF he succeeded at all, that he didn't encounter a crosswind, 'cause COULD'VE been the death of him, had he rolled over in flight.

[@glenturney4750]

@@mahbriggs: The turbine blades are just small flying wings that rotate.

[@deezynar]

Anyone who has studied this subject knows what happened and knows that this video misrepresents the facts. To boil it down, the Wrights are given credit for creating the first aircraft that was self powered, heavier than air, and CONTROLLED. Other people flew things before the Wrights, but none of them could control their planes. The Wrights flight at Kitty Hawk happened in the depth of winter when the temperature was near freezing, and they were at sea level. The air density was as thick as it can get. They also had a wind assist. And then there's the fact that the plane they had then was barely controllable. If someone wants to dismiss that flight, it could probably be argued. But it doesn't change history. The Wrights went back to Ohio and kept developing their ideas on control. They kept making flights until they had a control system that really worked. By 1908, they were making long lasting flights and making all sorts of turns, dives, etc. One of the brothers took a plane to Europe to demonstrate it. The Europeans had not believed the reports they heard that the Wrights could control their aircraft, and they called the Wrights bluffers. After the first demonstration flight, the European newspapers reported that the experts there had seen the Wright plane fly, and they apologized for their false claims about the brothers. The Europeans, as well as other Americans, saw the Wright planes and used their own inventive ideas to make even better aircraft. For the first years, the Wrights used a weight they lifted up a tower to catapult them into the air, and many people say that disqualifies them from the claim of being first. That is an irrelevant claim because the primary issue that needed to be solved back then was controlling the vehicle in the air. The development of an engine suitable to power an aircraft was going to happen anyway, because light, and powerful, engines were desired for other uses, such as racing cars. The Wrights did not want to take time from their work on the control system to put into developing a better engine. There were many, many, people working on that already who were more qualified in that area than they were. The Wrights took out a patent on their control system that covered wing warping, and ailerons. That was the magic sauce that made it possible for everyone else to move ahead with aviation. Nobody other than the Wrights did as much to move aviation forward. Many people had been heavily involved in experimenting with aircraft, but their development methods were incredibly unscientific. People would build a plane, and when it didn't work in some way, they wouldn't make small changes to try to solve its specific problems, they would make an entirely different plane to a different design. The next plane would also fail, and so on. The Wrights approached the problems they encountered in a much more systematic way. Their methods are outlined in every book ever written about the development of aviation. As an aside, it should always be pointed out that the Wrights were actually not the first to figure out the principle of how to control an airplane. Decades before the Wrights, a British man named Matthew Boulton had thought it out and patented ailerons. For some strange reason, his ideas were not widely seen or appreciated. The Wrights independently invented ailerons later without ever having heard of Boulton.

[@oldman1734]

The truth is, powered flight depended on a means of providing enough power with minimum weight. That was achieved by the Germans when they invented the internal combustion engine. The rest is overblown. A very successful glider with all the attributes required of a flying machine was designed by George Cayley and flown in England in 1853. All it lacked was a lightweight source of power. The Wright Brothers are credited with invented the flying machine, but the truth is much more complicated,

[@kentl7228]

They are credited with the first powered flight.

[@jesusmares7171]

Wrong!!

[@treyriver5676]

The truth is more complicated.. only if one does not want to understand that the Wrights solved all the problems of controlled powered flight, that in the case of the other "claimants" did not even fully understand if at all. Yes Cannon Balls fly... they are not powered flight.

[@astrotrek3534]

No one in 1853 could control a glider, that is what the Wrights did. Before the Wrights, no one understood 3 axis control, with rudders, elevators and ailerons (or wing warping).

[@oldman1734]

@@astrotrek3534. I learnt about this many years ago. I was interested in aeroplanes and for several years was a member of a gliding club. People forget that during the nineteenth century (the 1800s) Britain was the world leader in just about everything. In fact the British created the modern world. I’m not exaggerating. First “no one above the law” 1215, first Parliament 1265 (though some Icelanders claim they were the first), elections every three years (then), free speech 1680s etc, then the first to industrialise (beginning early 1700s). For a time more than half of everything manufactured in the world was manufactured in Britain! As I said, the only obstacle to powered flight was an engine of sufficient power and minimal weight. Powered flight actually depended on the invention of the internal combustion engine by the Germans. The Wright Brothers did produce the first successful powered flight, but their success depended on the work of others, and could have been achieved by one of many trying at the same time using the discoveries of Cayley who made a flying glider piloted by a man successfully in 1853.

[@davidestrich7055]

I read in a flying magazine around 15 years ago about a NewZealand man who all in the area say he was flying a month or so before the Wright bros. had their picture taken. Don't remember his name.

[@favesongslist]

Watch Richard Pearse: New Zealand's Aviation Pioneer and Forgotten Dreamer Richard Pearse's March 1903 aircraft was far more advanced design using a 15 HP engine with flaps and aileron; rather than the 'Wing warping' of the Wright Brothers. Its propeller also had variable pitch blades.

[@pukicat]

Richard Pearse, cheers!

[@mahbriggs]

@Timothy Webb Then why did he never fly it again? Somehow, I think it was a bit of a hoax, or at least a rumor that grew with the telling!

[@favesongslist]

@@mahbriggs Suggest you watch the History Guy video on Richard Pearse

[@mahbriggs]

@Timothy Webb I did, and I am not impressed. Even he claimed the Wright brothers were the first to fly!

[@jayrobertson232]

The Wright Bros. made several powered flights on the Huffman Prairie (Dayton OH), as witnessed by many of the local folks who followed their progress. I heard an eyewitness describe these events when I attended elementary school in Beavercreek OH. This eyewitness, Mr. Zink, was serving as a substitute teacher for my 4th grade class, and others over the years (he was also grandfather of my friends, brother Michael and Edward Zink). Grandpa Zink told his stories and answered all of our questions. He also said they told him that when they decided to move the test flights to Kittyhawk, it was because the conditions were much more favorable and consistently so….

[@stevebett4947]

I am not sure that there were many locals followed their progress. Most thought the bishops boys were crazy to spend their time trying to do something that everyone knew was impossible. The reporter from a paper that was 50 miles away did not bother to attend one of the 4 public demonstrations because he and his boss did not think the event was newsworthy. This reporter changed his mind 10 years later and became the author of their only authorized biography. Their flights were not secret since an interurban street car track bordered Huffman Prairie. It would sometimes stop and a few people would get out to watch the Wright Flyer circle the pasture. You should write up a more detailed version of your story. I had not heard about Mr. Zink.

[@PauloPereira-jj4jv]

@@stevebett4947 ... IF Mr. Zink really existed.

[@stevebett4947]

@ Paulo Pereira PP: "IF Mr. Zink really existed" SB: Mr. Zink said: when they decided to move the test flights to Kittyhawk, it was because the conditions were much more favorable and consistently so…. This seems backwards. They started experimenting with gliders in 1898 and didn't move to Huffman Prairie near Dayton, OH until 1904. It took then over 11 months to duplicate their success at Kitty Hawk. @ Paulo Pereira PP: "IF Mr. Zink really existed". SB: JR does not attempt to prove this. Did Mr. Zink own a farm near Huffman Prairie? The Wrights record many failures because the Flyer required a 15 mph headwind in order to get off the ground. A 15 mph headwind was rare at Huffman Prairie so they didn't have many successful flights until the end of 1904 when they introduced the linear catapult. . With the catapult, the wind only needed to be 10 mph and this provided many more successful flights. @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1

[@babyboomer9560]

You’re not a pilot. It was density altitude that made it difficult to fly in Dayton. Of course it was time of year and time of day also. On average.. better wind AND density altitude in Kitty Hawk . The brothers didn’t even know what density altitude was. Once they got a more powerful engine density altitude and winds didn’t make that much difference.

[@GigaBit-i2j]

There is no way to prove WB flew before 1908.

[@767bob]

Yes I got to watch this whole video and others of the same subject, if anyone doubts the Wright's accomplishments, you all need to read about their work, and then next two parts I am a true believer on the following. 1. Go out and build an airplane, does not have to be yours, look around and see if an owner building one needs assistance, find a job building them or build one yourself. 2. Then learn to fly...then you should see if White Head, Dumont or the one from New Zealand should deserve the first to fly heavier than air controlled flight!

[@JohnKSedor]

Excellent presentation on the facts of Gustave Whitehead flying before the Wright Brothers by 2 years in 1901 in Bridgeport Connecticut. Well done and thank you for your hard work!!!

[@MIKEPSYCHE]

#Pittsburgh1stinflight

[@jasonrusso9808]

To the old man at the Smithsonian..... Why would they document or diary a visitation in which they stole ideas?

[@gilbertcarrero5821]

The Smithsonian played politic with Langley Aerodrome because Samuel Pierpont Langley was the Smithsonian's third Secretary, from 1887 to 1906. Why not play politic again with a "history under contract" with the Wright Brother's. In addition, that flight has never been duplicated which is the foundation of science. Lilienthal made over 2,000 flights in gliders of his design starting in 1891 with his first glider version and was able to achieve flight distances as long as 250 meters (820 ft). So the next logical step is to add a motor to a similar redesigned glider which is exactly what Whitehead did, pure logic.

[@mahbriggs]

The Wright Brothers did duplicate their flight, and others did too! In fact, if you have ever flown in an airplane, it flown by the principles the Wright's developed!

[@DCherbonnier]

They not only replicated the flight in less than a year they were flying circuits. They are not famous because they were the first to fly. They were the first to be able to sustain CONTROLLED Flight. Read on and you'll realize why they didn't need to waste time with test flights, it's in the wind tunnel section. Prior to their method of altering wing aerodynamics, pilots shifted their weight to turn and controlled ascent and descent with power variations. They also realized rudders were necessary for stability and it's variable input was necessary to overcome the drag induced by lift was created onm the wings rudder. There initial efforts actually automatically coordinated the ruder wing airfoil changes. Secondly, they were the first to recognize a propeller needed to be shaped like an aerfoiil rather than a slanted flat surface. They also realized in order to get uniform lift (thrust) the angle of incidence (pitch) had to be greater near the hub and less at the tip due to the difference in speed through the air. The finished product produced a maximum efficiency of 66% (Some recent tests achieved 70%). That means that 66% of the horsepower of the small motor was converted by the propellers into thrust. This was far superior to any other inventors who were attempting to fly with engines of much greater horsepower and still couldn’t sustain flight. They were also the first to create a "Wind Tunnel" to test and improve their innovations. The brothers developed a series of quadratic equations from which they designed the propeller. All this work was accomplished before the advent of computers. Based on their calculations, they used hatchets and draw-knives to carefully carve a piece of wood into an eight-foot propeller with a helicoidal twist based on airfoil number 9, (They had devised over 200 shapes with the aid of their wind tunnel).An another example ff their genius, they created a wind tunnel to experiment on their different designs. They had over 200 airfoil shapes.

[@UncleAbdul]

@@mahbriggs While the Wright Bros. were pioneers in advancing the science by doing wind tunnel tests and all, modern airplanes don't use the "warped wing" design invented by them.

[@mahbriggs]

@UncleAbdul But they all use the principle of altering the lift on each wing in conjunction with the rudder to make coordinated turns! Whether you use airelons or wing warping, the principle is the same! You are altering the amount of lift of each individual wing to control roll. Used in conjunction with the rudder, this is the secret to a controlled flight! Pitch, yaw and roll! Talk to a pilot or, better yet, take some flight instruction! By the way, the Wight Patent included airelons.

[@othmanskn]

@@mahbriggs Using the 1908 model. All attempts to fly the 1903 model failed. But many Gustav models flown in 1901 were successfully test flown by now. Please watch the video and understand every word mentioned. There are transcripts also if you cannot hear well. You can also repeat the videos unlimitedly.

[@gaminawulfsdottir3253]

Less an attempt to vindicate Whitehead than to discredit the Wright brothers.

[@peanutbutterisfu]

It doesn’t matter who was first it’s who did more to get the invention to make something we use just like Henry Ford he wasn’t the first but he made the world change.

[@liamcollinson5695]

I think this is easy the wrights replica struggled to get of the ground at all but whiteheads replicas flew perfectly fine

[@jessicaarverne1181]

In France we consider the first manned heavier than air motorized flight to have taken place on October 14th, 1890 in Satory near Versailles. This very day the plane flew for just about 200 to 300 yards. The plane was called Avion III. The plane was designed by Clément Ader. It was powered by an ultralight a 20 hp steam engine and had two four blades propellers.

[@yootoober2009]

A paper airplane flies, is that a "flight" the way it is defined now? If so, then the inventor of the properly folded paper plane "flew first"... So the Avion III had a "20 hp "steam"? engine with two four-blade propellers".. Can you describe how they described that "flight" in October 14, 1890... Did that machine ever fly again, and again? Is it in any museum? Has it been replicated to prove it flies? Do you see any of his "airplane's" flight technology or systems in modern airplanes? Did Avion III actually had a "flight control" system? Was Avion III's propellers Clement Ader's own design or someone else's design and older than the Wright Flyers'?

[@jessicaarverne1181]

@@yootoober2009 If you define a flight as a heavier than air machine propelled by one or several engines controlled by a man onboard the machine taking off from a flat surface AND perfectly controlling the flight AND ending by proper landing, this was not the first flight. But if your definition is simply a heavier than air machine propelled by one or several engines controlled by a man onboard the machine taking off from a flat surface then this was the first flight. By the way the plane was not covered with paper but with fabric. Also this flight took place 13 years before the Wright brothers flight. In the mean time there has been a lot of progress in glider design. There is a replica in the Musée du conservatoire des arts et métiers in Paris. It would be interesting to try to fly with it.

[@furripupau]

Avion III spun out of control and crashed, and funding for the project was withdrawn. It was not controlled flight, and certainly it was not considered a viable design. There were several machines capable of heavier than air powered flight before the Wrights, which is why the Wrights had to stick so many qualifiers on their own flights - as unwieldy as the Wright flyer was, it was controllable. Earlier machines couldn't be adequately controlled once airborne, but plenty were capable of taking off.

[@DK-vx5co]

@@yootoober2009 Has the Wright flyer flown again? Seems they tried, as documented in the film, and they could not do it.

[@DK-vx5co]

@@yootoober2009 Has the Wright flyer flown again, and again? Seems they tried, as documented in the film, and they could not do it.

[@hilldweller2]

Sir George Cayley - First Successful Glider to Carry a Human Being. 100 years earlier, so we Brits claim.

[@10minutesusa]

Anyone have a set drawings or plans for the Whitehead #21?

[@TheHikrr]

Ask Gustav Weißkopf Museum, they have drawings and maybe plan.

[@raymondjensen4603]

The Museum may of made drawings from pictures, but as far as I know, Whitehead didn't make drawings

[@TheHikrr]

@@raymondjensen4603 The museum has many examples of successful model airplanes on its site. It's possible they have plans for that too.

[@joemason9187]

No dihedral on the kitty hawk looked like most of the problem plus under powered, also I'd go with the fact that exact replicas do not fly

[@cardinalRG]

Can you account for all "exact replicas" that have been made, and all of their attempts to fly? Can you account for the physical conditions in which all attempts were made? If you can't do these things, then you're only guessing.

[@Chris.Davies]

You will never convince me Richard Pearse, the Kiwi inventor of the aileron did not fly first. He even built his own lightweight engines. The problem was Pearse's definition of flying was far more advanced than simply getting airborne, and so his rightful place in history had been denied.

[@furripupau]

Pearse himself stated quite plainly that he did not make his flight until 1904. The people claiming he flew in 1903 made their statements years after the fact and got the date wrong. I would think Pearse himself would be the ultimate authority on the date.

[@oesypum]

Following the Civil Service guidlines, when something doesn't fit with your own beliefs,"Deny it, deny it, deny it", not the stance I would expect from someone whose education is based on a science discipline.. New evidence will always come to light, a fact many historians have to accept..

[@gild2604]

Simple, build 2 replicas and check which is flying further

[@KAZVorpal]

Nobody's ever gotten a faithful Wright replica to fly.

[@blownonfuel]

​@@KAZVorpalNo need to, plenty of original film of them flying.

[@KAZVorpal]

@@blownonfuel No, there is no original film of them flying in 1903. That's why the whole controversy can exist.

[@blownonfuel]

@@KAZVorpal No but there is right after. In fact, they only film of true early controlled flight. Just because you got off the ground, it is not flight.

[@KAZVorpal]

@@blownonfuel Actually, as the video notes, the film is probably from YEARS later.

[@richardsleep2045]

Interesting comments too, thanks.

[@nathansealey6270]

In this day & age the smithsonians is known for holding back many truths about our past

[@garrington120]

The Wrights built and launched powered gliders between1903 and 1907 , incapable of taking off without a rail ,gantry and heavy counterweight catapult!!! No wheeled undercarriage .so NOT flight under its own power!!! .

[@raymondjensen4603]

@@garrington120 Sorry Gary, True, the 1903 flights were on a rail because it was sandy, but there was no counterweight catapult, that came latter. So on the first flights they did take off on their own power.

[@doorguru168888]

@nathansealey6270 Many?? Can you mention three or four??

[@raymondjensen4603]

Known by who, for what..., relating to aeronautical history. I would truly be interested in knowing the particulars evolving Tom Crouch the man representing the Smithsonian.

[@bartleymollohan1090]

A very nicely made docuslanderly…

[@get.factual]

thanks bartley mollohanerly

[@jazonmiranda5625]

Santos dumont foi o primeiro a tirar o mais pesado que o ar . Com seus próprios meios com o 14 bis. E ninguém tira esse mérito dele.

[@Machia52612]

No. You’re mistaken. Read history.

[@crossthreadaeroindustries8554]

This story portrays some messy realities of the competition around first-to-fly. Everyone competing knew the financial opportunity. Cui bono? Who has/is protecting their comfort?

[@constantinosschinas4503]

Wright Brothers where the first to fly as much as Edison invented the Bulb and Bell the Radio.

[@paulmoffat9306]

Bell was the Telephone, Marconi was Radio.

[@1pcfred]

@@paulmoffat9306 Tesla invented radio

[@mahbriggs]

@Paul Frederick Agreed, the patent fight ruled against Marconi. Although Marconi's design was more practice than Tesla's.

[@1pcfred]

@@mahbriggs when Tesla invented all of the technology his goal was not to achieve wireless communication. Tesla was working on wireless power transfer.

[@mahbriggs]

@Paul Frederick Yes, Tesla kind of missed the boat on that one! Although he did do some experiments in long-distance communication.

[@brianpencall4882]

For the real story, watch Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles video on this subject.

[@fmbga]

The omission of Whitehead's contribution to the history of flight may also have something to do with the anti- German hysteria of World War I.

[@DCherbonnier]

It was not an omission. He did not achieve sustained controlled flight

[@michaellovetere8033]

@@DCherbonnier 12 eye witnesses say different

[@tedmoss]

@@michaellovetere8033 They were paid shills.

[@gkdresden]

I wonder that none has tried motorized flight by use of light weight fast running steam motors, which were allready available in the 1860ies. Light weight water tube boilers with superheaters were already available since the 1830ies. Both technologies were used in cars between the 1890ies and 1920ies. From 1910 on they had also recondensation systems in several steam cars, like the Noble. I think, they wanted to have compact engine as a single power spot in their flying machines. Steam motors are more or less distributed systems. But this can be also considered as an advantage. The expander of a steam motor can be made very small and light weight and used as a direct drive for the propeller. The boiler can be located remotely in the mass equilibrium point of the flyer.

[@cestmoi1262]

Seems the Wright brothers had other interests besides flight. A picture produced 5 years after the alleged original flight proves nothing. I can understand omission of a visit to a competitor in their otherwise well kept annals as being detrimental to their interests.

[@charleswesley9907]

Their Wrong flyer was not much but a puddle jumper . The whole thing was bullshite .Gustave flew first by a gas engine and the French man with steam power. The Gas engine was a more practical power solution. But the Wrights was awarded an honor by predudes and a what ever fortune of recognition. .

[@mahbriggs]

@@charleswesley9907 And according to you the Earth is flat!

[@DCherbonnier]

@@charleswesley9907 They are not famous because they were the first to fly. They were the first to be able to suatain a CONTROLLED Flight. Prior to their method of altering wing aerodynamics, pilots shifted their weight to turn and controlled ascent and descent with power variations. They also realized rudders were necessary for stability and it's variable input was necessary to overcome the drag induced by lift was created onm the wings rudder. There initial efforts actually automatically coordinated the ruder wing airfoil changes. Secondly, they were the first to recognize a propeller needed to be shaped like an aerfoiil rather than a slanted flat surface. They also realized in order to get uniform lift (thrust) the angle of incidence (pitch) had to be greater near the hub and less at the tip due to the difference in speed through the air. The finished product produced a maximum efficiency of 66% (Some recent tests achieved 70%). That means that 66% of the horsepower of the small motor was converted by the propellers into thrust. This was far superior to any other inventors who were attempting to fly with engines of much greater horsepower and still couldn’t sustain flight. They were also the first to create a "Wind Tunnel" to test and improve their innovations. The brothers developed a series of quadratic equations from which they designed the propeller. All this work was accomplished before the advent of computers. Based on their calculations, they used hatchets and draw-knives to carefully carve a piece of wood into an eight-foot propeller with a helicoidal twist based on airfoil number 9, (They had devised over 200 shapes with the aid of their wind tunnel).

[@DCherbonnier]

Of all the early aviators, they were the first to sustain controlled flight where turning, ascent or descent was performed by change in the airfoil not by shifting wieght or power adjustments. They also in vented the modern propellor design which enabled sustained thrust at a fraction of the horsepower, hence engine weight. And amongst all those early aviators, they were the only ones who remained active in the industry contributing more advancements and achieved commercial success.

[@cestmoi1262]

@@DCherbonnier Keep in mind: FIRST IN FLIGHT. What you describe seems like contributions that the Wright brothers made in subsequent years. Just like Gutenberg did not invent the printing press but made the printing process viable for cheap distribution. Same goes for Ford. He did not invent the automobile but made it a commodity available to the masses. Of all the "experts" on flight you are the only one to mention these innovative ideas of the Wright brothers. Interesting, but not convincing to be part of the First Flight.

[@LucianoSilvaOficial]

Alberto Santos Dumont made the first flight in public in Paris, and years before created the dirigible solving the problem of controled flight for baloons.

[@cardinalRG]

Santos-Dumont did not create the dirigible, but he surely advanced that technology, as well as lighter-than-air flight itself, as nobody had before.

[@macwilliambasilio4128]

The first person to lift his device off the ground by his own means, and not using a catapult like the Wright Brothers, was the Brazilian Santos Dumont. An aviation pioneer with his experiences duly documented by hundreds of newspapers at the time.

[@cardinalRG]

You made the same comment in another forum, and you were corrected there. The 1903 Wright Flyer did not use a catapult, nor did the 1904 Flyer initially. And the use of a catapult was only ever a performance preference, not a necessity. Santos-Dumont was a great aviation pioneer and his achievements speak for themselves. His legacy doesn't need you to distort facts about the Wrights.

[@whatthehellol1610]

The Wright Brothers flew higher, and turned.

[@mahbriggs]

But he never achieved controled flight until the Wrights showed him how in 1909, six years after they achieved it at Kittyhawk!

[@cardinalRG]

@@mahbriggs --Santos-Dumont flew from 1906 onward. Where are you getting "1909"?

[@mahbriggs]

@Cardinal R G That was when he started doing sustained controlled flight! His 1906 "flight" was a hop in the air, but without " roll" capability, it was not a sustained or controllable flight! Not that it matters. The Wright's 1903 flight was 150 further and three years earlier.

[@lone-wolf-1]

Thank you for this wonderful documentary!👍🏼👏🏼😃

[@johnhboden48]

Of course the first, public flight (without the use of a launcher) was 1906 in Paris by Brazilian, Santos Dumont.

[@mahbriggs]

Wrong! Kittyhawk, North Carolina, December 17, 1903! Get your facts straight!

[@BrazilianSeafarer]

@@mahbriggs nope. It was indeed Dumont longer before Wright Bros. Get your facts together.

[@mahbriggs]

@Anderson Azevedo Obviously, you are a victim of misinformation! I suggest you aquaint yourself with facts, not propaganda! I strongly suggest you look up "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" He did a video on this a week ago, throughly dispelling the false rumors about Santos Dumont! Of course, this might cause you some emotional pain, but wouldn't you like to know the truth? By the way, as an incentive, he has offered a thousand dollar reward to anyone who can prove him wrong! Be brave, watch his video "Gustav vs. The Wrights" and his earlier video, " Santo Dumont, Wright Brothers, and Propeller Basics". Of course, I will understand if you are too cowardly intellectually to learn the truth! After all, Santos Dumont is your Nations only claim to fame.

[@BrazilianSeafarer]

@@mahbriggs To be honest I really don’t care much. I grew up knowing of Santos Dumont being the first to fly but then again, they could be wrong. The only thing l care now is my Eagles winning the Super Bowl.

[@mahbriggs]

@Anderson Azevedo I appreciate your admission that the Wright's were the first to fly.

[@Brutaga]

Gustav WeißerKopf actual flight, clearly proves that he’d succeeded in powered flight, well before the Wright brothers. It sickens me that those whom are able to mislead true historic events, are quite content to continue in deliberately misleading an important historical event. Particularly the Smithsonian Museum

[@tomgunn8004]

The distance flown is less important than the ability for controlled flight

[@patrichausammann]

I have a different view. As a modeller who builds his own planes without anyone else's plans, I can say that the most important thing is for a powered plane to balance itself correctly in the air and cover a distance in a straight line. That's the basis. Steering is secondary and really shouldn't be counted as something difficult. Even the dumbest person quickly realizes that when drag is increased on one side of the plane, the plane moves in the direction of drag. Of course, this also works by increasing or decreasing the propeller speed, which requires two engines to fly a turn. Likewise when increasing or decreasing the speed. The aircraft climbs when the RPM is increased, and when the RPM is decreased or the engine(s) stall(s), the aircraft automatically descends or falls depending on the design. And while we're at it, it's important to note that the first Wright Flyer wasn't really steerable, which is also evident in the photos (straight line from the launch rail). In addition, the Wright brothers' first plane didn't even have time to demonstrate a turn during its 12 seconds of flight time, much more care had to be taken not to crash.

[@tedmoss]

@@patrichausammann You are completely wrong, the Wright brothers documented their work, read it.

[@jpkatz1435]

As in all things, it's the definition that sets the terms. You go up, can you sucessfully TURN, and under power, fly back? Is only going straight "flight" ? Or is going out AND back "flight"?

[@patrichausammann]

@@jpkatz1435 I agree, for me personally the term "powered flight" doesn't have much to do with turning flight yet. It's just about taking off with the help of a motor and covering a greater distance than is possible with one jump. By that I mean that the parabola does not reach a single highest point and then drops again, but that the parabola ends in a long straight line towards the top (up and down without touching down in between, I would also accept).

[@PauloPereira-jj4jv]

No, it's NOT... if you're trying to prove you performed the "first" FLIGHT.

[@anjuverma3610]

Old is gold

[@ciberius4]

The Wright brothers used a catapult. Even a rock can fly for a while if you use a catapult.

[@cardinalRG]

The 1903 Wright Flyer did not use a catapult, nor did the 1904 Flyer initially. Thereafter, the Wrights' use of a catapult was a performance preference, not a necessity. And a catapult is irrelevant anyway, if the aircraft can sustain itself in flight, which a rock can't do.

[@ciberius4]

@@cardinalRG The Wright brothers not only used catapults, but always took off on higher ground and against the wind. Their "plane" would never take off from any modern airport runway, no matter how long. At least the Navy pilots have the dignity to admit that, without catapults, their planes would crash trying to take off from aircraft carriers.

[@BoDarvil77]

@@ciberius4 so an F/A-18 Hornet taking off from a carrier isn't really achieving powered flight because it uses a catapult. Got it.

[@ciberius4]

@@BoDarvil77 Unlike a rock or the Wright Brothers "plane", the F/A-18 Hornet continues flying after takeoff.

[@astrotrek3534]

@@ciberius4 The Wright flyer 3 flew for 39 minutes in 1905.

[@franciscogomes4416]

Albert Santos Dumont , Brazilian was the first to fly a self propelled plane 14 bis in Paris.

[@RamSharma-sm8es]

I believe the history is what the writer writes and entirely depends upon the integrity and honesty of the writer. Facts be dammed..

[@tedmoss]

There is some truth to what you say, there is a smaller truth to what was said, mostly for sensationalism.

[@DouglasJenkins]

Once the Wrights had built their windtunnel, they discovered that Lilienthal's airfoils were not scientifically efficient. If they had visited Whitehead, they would have seen right away that he was using Lilienthal's wings and so headed down a least successful path. Not to mention Whitehead still lacked the vertical yaw control via a rudder. Did Whitehead gain an earlier heavier-than-air flight? Possibly ... but not with the three axis control necessary for proper controlled flight, which the Wrigh't's could do. Besides, at 44.46, below the highlighted text in one of the news articles talking about Whitehead, it is said that Whitehead responded, "... but he has been unable to design a generator sufficiently light to propel it." It makes me wonder if it ever made a "motorized" flight.

[@kevin-parratt-artist]

Alexander Graham Bell wasn't the inventor of the telephone, either.

[@jannespor8178]

Well, when he invented the telephone, he had missed call from Chuck Norris.

[@nickjung7394]

I thought it was Cedric Voda

[@tbirdracefan]

I would say that the evidence presented in this video establishes that the Write brothers were probably not first in flight.

[@thomasjamison2050]

The thing about the Smithsonian is that it is government funded. The thing to remember about Bridgeport is that it is a relatively minor consistently Democratic State, whereas Ohio is a pivotal and key swing state. Oh, don't never think that politicians are petty little itches.

[@cardinalRG]

Your little innuendo about favoritism doesn't make for fact, nor anything close to it. If you have some evidence that the federal government, or the state of Ohio, or whatever other boogeyman of your choice has actually leveraged the case for the Wrights over Whitehead, then let's see it, please.

[@thomasjamison2050]

@@cardinalRG If you watched the clip, you have already seen the proof. What are you? A child?

[@cardinalRG]

@@thomasjamison2050 --No, because a child might not notice that you’re deflecting, but I do. Also, you might consider fact-checking this video, rather than accepting it at face value.

[@thomasjamison2050]

@@cardinalRG I did fact check.

[@thomasjamison2050]

@@cardinalRG And it is a very well proven fact from that era that New York judges could very easily be bought it you had the money. As a matter of fact, even judgeships were generally purchased as known price levels.

[@paxwallace8324]

Contract: The Smithsonian must never claim that powered flight ever occurred before 1903 Wright Flyer. Yeah caught red handed $$

[@paulbriggs3072]

Since this seems about the first powered flight then it goes to either Maxim of England or Ader of France in the 1890's. But if this is about the first controlled flight, then I wonder how Whitehead's craft was controlled.

[@Istandby666]

The Wright flier was within ground effect. The Wright flier never actually flew.

[@cardinalRG]

Which Flyer are you talking about, and why do you think ground effect disqualifies the legitimacy of a flight?

[@linusromey561]

I keep waiting for the central case to be presented, but it was never addressed. The Wright brothers were the first to understand that a practical flying machine would need a three axis control system. There has never been a claim that anyone understood this prior to the Wright brothers. They never attempted to install an engine on one of their flyers until they had understood, designed, and perfected their control system. It has never been contested that others flew before the Wright brothers, in balloons, gliders, etc, but NON of them could CONTROL where they went or where they ended up.

[@worldtraveler930]

Well Said!!! 🤠👍

[@DoubleMrE]

Yes. It was the wing warping system that was the central breakthrough. Though it was the invention of the aileron by Glenn Curtis that was ultimately the way to go.

[@deezynar]

@@DoubleMrE The Wrights had patented ailerons before Curtis copied from them.

[@deezynar]

A British man, by the name of Matthew Boulton, patented the aileron in 1868. Strangely, no one seemed to have noticed. The Wrights invented them independently, decades later, and they made the world aware of how important roll control is to turning.

[@billlewis9362]

@@deezynar Not correct the Wrights used wing warping, not ailerons!

[@MultiSteveB]

27:14 The recreation depicted is missing a very important element - the Wright Bothers had a tower with a weight to function as a catapult system. But the creator(s) of the recreation should be commended on getting the counter-rotating propellers correct.

[@cardinalRG]

You're mistaken. The 1903 Wright Flyer did not use a catapult.

[@MultiSteveB]

@@cardinalRG I stand corrected on this point. Thank you. Kitty Hawk had seasonal strong winds from a reliable direction, which made a catapult unnecessary. Flying from other locations with lesser and more variable winds necessitated the addition of the catapult.

[@cardinalRG]

@@MultiSteveB --No worries, friend. I’ll add that there’s more context to it than just winds. The catapult also allowed takeoff from rough surfaces and in confined spaces, such as the soft dunes of Kill Devil Hills and the hummocky, tree-lined Huffman Prairie, places where wheeled aircraft such as Whitehead’s #21 and Santos-Dumont’s 14-bis likely couldn’t have operated at all. The catapult was also a performance preference for the Wrights, past the time when their aircraft were powerful enough to take off without a catapult and in still air. They believed that in the future, the shortened distance of an assisted takeoff would be favored over long runways-they were wrong in that predication, of course, but their view was certainly reasoned. Consider that the catapult-assisted Flyers took off in about 60 feet, whereas the nearest contemporary rival, the 14-bis, needed more than ten times that distance (200 meters).

[@BlondieSuperdog]

Another thing that is rather perplexing is why two bicycle builders couldn't manage some wheels ; rails seem inevitably more cumbersome.

[@cardinalRG]

The use of a rail was to allow operation from rough surfaces such as the dunes of Kill Devil Hills, and the hummocky Huffman Prairie, places where competitors’ wheels aircraft would not have been able to operate.

[@garrington120]

The Wrights built and launched powered gliders between1903 and 1907 , incapable of taking off without a rail ,gantry and heavy counterweight catapult!!! No wheeled undercarriage .so NOT flight under its own power,

[@cardinalRG]

@@garrington120 --Sigh…Gary., how many times do you have you be corrected? To begin with, you still don’t comprehend what a glider is. Second, you don’t acknowledge the reason that the Wrights used a catapult some of the time after late 1904, despite that this has been explained to you, including right here in this same thread.

[@garrington120]

@@cardinalRG LOL Are you a troll for the closed minded xenophobic Smithsonian Museum ? , would appear so as your youtube channel HAS NO CONTENT.!!

[@cardinalRG]

@@garrington120 --Now you're just flailing, Gary.

[@griffith500tvr]

It's like the Hubble constant that really should be the Lemaitre constant.

[@kwd3109]

Well, next time bring along a camera! There were plenty around in 1901. Why didn't anyone take a picture of Whitehead flying? I mean there were newspaper reporters covering his supposed first flight, supposedly the first powered flight in history and they forgot to bring their cameras??

[@antr7493]

or bring a few hundred people 😁

[@yootoober2009]

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out Gustav's "plane" just caught a gust of wind and deposited a few meters away and never caught another, so it never flew again and the reporters didn't have their cameras to take pictures... The Wrights had pictures of their accomplishment..

[@jgrab1]

Why is it the Wright Brothers' flight was captured by just one photo from one guy who was asked at the last moment and wasn't even sure he got the shot?

[@gghhhfghgh]

Muita hipocrisia! E o suposto vôo do Flyers 1 de 1903 que a foto sem data só apareceu 5 anos depois dos fatos! Kkkkkkk

[@mahbriggs]

@@jgrab1 But he did. So what is your point? The Wright's did not invite news paper reporters to their first flights.

[@PalmerMaddox-fn9ov]

Walter f. Wright is My uncle.passed in 1985.also worked for my dad .lovisa Louise gustoffison.is My mother I am Howard Hughes 3.in east Texas.

[@jaybox4284]

I belive the story just from the fact that no one can duplicate the first Wright flyer but easily build and fly gustavs.

[@cardinalRG]

I encourage you to do some genuine research.

[@jaybox4284]

@@cardinalRG I do actually. Seeing as how I'm from oklahoma where a lot of aviation history has happened. I do feel that they all contributed in their ways but it's sad someone has to do the Edison thing and claim a crown that should be held by several not just one. I believe a third though I can't remember his this second but his design was nothing like either Gustav or the wright's but it still flew. The institute should recognize more than just the wright's. It's sad so many immigrants were cast aside in favor of people who weren't the genius they made themselves out to be.

[@cardinalRG]

@@jaybox4284 -- _”…no one can duplicate the first Wright flyer…” To make that claim, you first have to account for every attempt made to re-create the 1903 Flyer, and then judge its authenticity by understanding the difference between a true _replica_ and what’s known in the aviation community as a “look-alike”. If you then made a claim that no one has re-created the 1903 flights, you’d have to account for all of those flight attempts as well, and also the physical conditions in which such attempts were made. If your research doesn’t meet these criteria, then you’re really only guessing about whether the original Flyer has been duplicated or flown. As for a Whitehead _replica,_ I don’t know of any that have been made. I’m aware of a couple of _look-alikes,_ aircraft which share much in common with the original, but which also contain modifications, upgrades and whole substitutions-for example, to airfoils, powerplants and propellers. As such, they do not exhibit the same performance range of the original. In addition, the flight attempts of which I’m aware were merely very brief, straight-line hops, far short of Whitehead’s claimed flights over distance and with turns. As such, these look-alikes do nothing to prove or disprove that the original “No. 21” flew at all. It boils down to the fact that only a true _replica’s_ performance could be meaningful, and only in physical conditions that match those of the claimed original flight(s). So far as I know, that hasn’t been the case with either Whitehead or Wright aircraft, and certainly not with the 2003 Wright Centennial attempt which the video (at 33:20) deceptively implies is evidence against the claim for the original 1903 flight. On that day in 2003, the attempt was made in a density altitude at least 2,000 feet higher than in 1903, in higher humidity, with an engine running on only three of four cylinders, and with a pilot who outweighed the Wrights and who had none of their extensive practice with a machine that was extremely difficult to control.

[@jaybox4284]

@@cardinalRG the main problem they faced was the forward control canard which was prone to failure they corrected this in the 1908 flyer but even that one was dangerous.

[@cardinalRG]

@@jaybox4284 --Yes, and that illustrates that the 1903 was quite difficult to control. That’s all the more reason that any present-day failure to fly a _replica_ or look-alike Flyer, in any single attempt, with little or no piloting practice with the unwieldy machine beforehand (as was the case with the 2003 Centennial attempt), should not be surprising. It also illustrates the Wrights’ methodical, analytical approach, because they identified control shortcomings like this, overcame them, and wrote it all down. Their “paper trail” of research and development, whose data have since been validated by experts, and copied by their competitors at the time, is one of the things that elevates the case for the Wrights over that of Whitehead. I doubt that you could find any influence by Whitehead on his competitors or those who came afterward.

[@gild2604]

The photographe remained me the moon landing 🤣 five years after here is the photo,we were first 🤣

[@Channelscruf]

If anyone thinks the Wrights didn’t invent the airplane, there is a channel run by an aerospace engineer that will pay you $1000 if you prove they didn’t. Hint: save your time. They did.

[@gordonwroe3739]

I saw the channel. Any pilot can see that this engineer understands aviation. John Brown is a fraud...

[@robertbolding4182]

I don't see how money changes history but you seem to think it does. You inadvertently prove that money can buy history.

[@Marcos5pb]

Yes, I remember the centenary celebration in 2003! Fantástic!!! 😂😂😅😂😂😂😅😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@stevebett4947]

@@Marcos5pb Were you there? Can you provide any detail such as the wind velocity and the area where spectators were excluded in the unlikely event that it flew? One photo suggests that it was only 50 ft. long. The 1903 Wright flyer and Hyde's exact replicas require a 15 mph head wind in order to fly 100 ft. With a 27 mph headwind, an experienced pilot could fly in about 170 ft. Very high air density would be required to fly it 852 ft.

[@michaelkaiser4674]

ride on my friend!

[@allanrodzinski5850]

The guy that looks like the Monopoly Man that says at the end of the program, "If somebody ever came up with credible evidence that I could buy, that someone had flown before the Wright's then...I'd admit it." He also says, "There is no evidence I buy..." Sounds like money talks and that's just what happened here - Gustav Whitehead, I salute you.

[@marcusotxoa]

He is the curator Tom D. Crouch and he was born in Dayton, Ohio, the same place where the Wright brothers were born. So ...

[@stevebett4947]

@@marcusotxoa SB: Couch is not the only historian who comes to this conclusion. There is a possibility of bias but all this means is the evidence might need to be a little higher or stronger before he would accept it. The engineers who studied the flight capabilities of the flyer have said that everything had to be perfect on 17 December 1902 for the Flyer to fly. I doubt if any other airman could handle the original Wright Flyer. It takes a few hours to acquire the skills to handle the unstable prototype.

[@user-ms4ef8xz9t]

I think Dr. Crouch should find a new line of work. He's not much of an historian. Perhaps he should manage things at Kitty Hawk. His lack of willingness to accept new information is as North Carolina as it gets. Willful ignorance is a very real thing in NC.

[@MORCOPOLO0817]

Whatever the case may be, for those "Early contenders" of the "Title" none of them developed, studied and worked out in detail to the extent that the wright brothers did. And the wright brother's airplaines were more agile, versatile and maneuverable than any of their contemporaries such as Santos Dumont and Whitehead. It is not uncommon when inventions are made for several people to be working on the same invention simultaneously. The development of the radio is a perfect example. Antonio Meucci was the true inventor of the telephone but the credit always goes to Bell.

[@michaellovetere8033]

more agile and maneuverable?/???????????...They had no ailerons, no tail rudder..all they could do with this flying kite is go where the wind let them go....

[@1crazypj]

And Tesla invented radio

[@mahbriggs]

@Michael Lovetere Obviously you low nothing of aviation or history! I suggest you get yourself informed before exposing your ignorance!

[@mahbriggs]

@MORCOPOLO0817 ARE YOU MICHAEL LOVETERE? Check who you are responding to. I agreed with you!

[@MORCOPOLO0817]

@@michaellovetere8033 know a lot moe than you and what you claim to know is only what you wish you knew.

[@gearheadgregwi]

Like so many inventions of the guilded age, so many were approaching the same ideas at the same time. Definitely politics and marketing involved. A lesson about not only coming up with the idea but selling it to the masses.

[@robdow6348]

The article this video refers to in New York paper, they claim proves Whiteheads flight……was written by Whitehead. 😂 Plus his replica is using a modern engine and propeller, that whitehead didn’t have. The Wrights were the ones that solved the control issue of asymmetrical thrust, by designing a moveable rudder. There is no rudder on whiteheads object.

[@JohnKSedor]

Your claims are distorted. Even a Park Ranger at the Kitty Hawk Memorial privately told me that Whitehead indeed flew first before the WRONG BROTHERS and then pulled out a copy of Jane's Aviation and turned to a book marked page to prove it.

[@BlondieSuperdog]

Or - they used a downhill sliding assist - which also is possible but since they needed a catapult later where there were witnesses - they had to have some sort of assist to get into the air. One could still claim - they were self powered in the air but that would be hard to demonstrate on such a short flight. I think it is pretty clear that the Wrights were the first to have controlled heavier than air powered flight once they were airborne, but there were some others in the same time frame that could claim first heavier than air powered flight in an uncontrolled flight; I think Whitehead looks most rational guess. Lighter than air controlled flight was well ahead at that time.

[@cardinalRG]

There’s no evidence that any Wright Flyer used a downward slope to assist takeoff, so you’re only guessing about that, and your claim that they “…had to have some sort of assist to get into the air” is groundless. The Wrights’ use of a catapult was a performance preference, not a necessity to take of at all.

[@raymondjensen4603]

When a cave man fell off a cliff you could say that was the first uncontrolled flight. Then there are people like Otto Lilienthal who flew with some control but had no ability to sustain flight. Along can the Wrights building a device with the ability to sustain flight with control. Consider that Whitehead really did nothing more than what had already been accomplished by Otto Lilienthal and a cave man.

[@gghhhfghgh]

Quero lembrar a este canal que em 1906 existiam 3 premiações na França para quem voar com uma máquina mais pesada que o ar, Santos Dumont venceu 2 prêmios. O flyers I do Wright era fisicamente impossível de voar por conta do peso potencia. Incrível como os Estados Unidos vendeu essa ideia para o mundo através de uma foto sem data que disseram que foi tirada em 1903 mas só apareceu em 1908 e o mundo acreditou!

[@danelord1356]

yes nice to get records straight, but its not only in flying the need is there, also there is enough records that colombus was not the first to sail to america the wikings was there 1000 years before him