The Wright Brothers Part 1 (1970) Paul Garber - History Of Flight

[@MrRotorcraft]

This is worth every minute of your time. The Bishops Boys is a great read for aviation lovers.

[@raffialexanian]

I really appreciate someone like you loading us with fantastic aeronautical videos...all the props to you sir @airboyd :)

[@AXHEJAZ]

AWESOME VIDEO, MAN I HOPE KZbin WON'T PLAY AROUND AND CLAIM THIS VIDEO AS A COPY RIGHT, BECAUSE THIS VIDEO SHOULD BE FOR THE WORLD TO SEE AND EXPERIENCE A LITTLE OF AVIATION HISTORY!

[@denivalsantos4583]

From what i understend, the prerson who actually managed to fly for the first time was the Brazilian Santos Dumont. The brothers brothers need a catapult or boost and not yet presented proof in Paris France.

[@Ramblin-Man]

For all you aviation fans out there: There's lots of stuff like this for free at archive.org, streaming or for (legal) downloading...it's public domain!

[@jasonbadler]

This is one of the vest videos I've seen on KZbin. Thanks for posting that up for us to watch. BTW, where do you get these?

[@martinlutherite]

Where is part 1?

[@jamesb.9155]

Part 1 of 4.

[@johnmichaelpix]

The video mentions Fort Myer, Virginia as where the first miltary aviation flight by Orville Wright - I just completed a book about the historic US Army Post which will be published in JUN 2011 John "DASH" Michael "DOT" net is my website ... you might enjoy exploring.

[@afraniodepauladasilva644]

Today, with all the technology that we have engine and propeller, got take off with difficulty 10 kg / hp. As the flyer got take off 22.8 kg / hp 100 years ago? ..... The 14 bis took off with 5 kg / hp ...... Very reasonable.

[@iChiphead]

There was a Wright Flyer I, II, and III *all* before Santos-Dumont ever left the ground on 14-bis. Of course the very first Wright Flyer 1 was a little weak compared to airplanes that would come 3 years later. Did you compare the power-to-weight of the Wright Flyer III, which *also* predated the 14-bis? Do you know that 14-bis for all of its power was unable to leave "ground effect"? When aviation pioneer Octave Chanute witnessed the 726-foot flight of the 14-bis in Paris, he remarked that Santos-Dumont had accomplished nothing more than what the Wrights had already done in 1904. According to Chanute, the performance of the 14-bis was greatly inferior to that of the Wright Flyer 2, which the Wrights built in 1904.

[@SitocawithSorento]

dam the moment when u comepare to this with tyhe a380 with food,seats,bathroom,lounge..

[@cmcampbell1000]

how do i do what?

[@revnmalak]

r u talking to me

[@ThomasDeLello]

What I admire most about the Wright brothers is that they managed to outsmart all the fraudulent claims to their due credit without the advantage that people like Alexander Graham Bell so deviously used to their unscrupulous advantage.

[@wilburnorvillewilburn5801]

WHY THE BROTHERS APPEARENCE IN FLIGHTS 1908???? FIRST OFICIAL FLIGHT - 337 METERS WITH HEADWINDS!!!! NO RACE, NO TAKEOFF

[@iChiphead]

The Wrights had intended for the first version of their Flyer to fly into a headwind. They wanted a slow groundspeed so that they could study and refine their aircraft with as little risk as possible. Remember that Lilienthal, who had been highly influential to the Wrights, had been recently killed in a glider crash around that time. At Kitty Hawk, the Wright Flyer only traveled at about 9 mph over the ground, and a crash onto sand at that speed from only a few feet of altitude was almost certainly survivable. This was very clever, and it allowed the Wrights to survive long enough to refine the aircraft. That does not mean that the Wright Flyer derived its lift from the wind, though, or that it absolutely could not have taken off without it, but it would have required a much longer takeoff distance. (Perhaps more than 1000 feet.) Most aircraft need at least 500 feet for a takeoff roll, but the Wright Flyer 1 used only 60 feet, thanks due mostly to the wind.