Slashdot Mirror
Kiwi Flight Before the Wright Brothers?
houseofmore writes "The Toronto Star is is reporting that New Zealander Richard Pearse may have very well made several flights beginning almost nine months before the Wright Brothers ever got off the ground. It also notes that "Mad Pearse's" machine was in some ways more advanced than the first Wright Flyer."
Big deal if he might or might not have flown first. When the brothers Wright, they gained the publicity needed to spur greater innovation in avionics. So it doesn't matter that he did it first, as he didn't didn't influence anyone important enough (like the Wright brothers did with the military). Interestigly enough, the article talks about how Pearse's aircraft was more 'modern', as it had ailerons for steering as opposed to the wing warping of the Wrights' craft. But isn't the aerospace industry trying to use wing warping technology in the next generation of aircraft? Kudos to the man if he actually did make a flying machine, that's no small task, but there's no real point to revise history for someone with so little impact.
A quote from the article, "Dr. Peter Jakab, a curator at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C., doesn't deny that Pearse got off the ground. "But what he flew was essentially a powered glider flying into a ravine. So it wasn't a true powered flight. He's just one of many pre-Wright claimants."
Newspapers need to have stories like this occassionally. Therefore, Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare, and this guy flew first.
If he actually did, well, tough. Inventions and discoveries often happen contemporaneously. One of them gets the credit, and the others peddle paranoid theories.
it was a kiwi whom flew first, just as it were a kiwi whom made the first pavolva :p
The Wrights were not stupid. They realized the importance of what they were doing and made sure that their efforts would be documented. As the above quote demonstrates, this documentation is what led them to fame and fortune.
In today's competitive marketplace, it is not enough to be a "geek" with a dream. Different people have different kinds of expertise, and one asset any inventor or entrepeneur needs is a good marketing department, one that will see that the right information gets out to the right market segments, ensuring success for all.
Microsoft, RSA, eBay, the tech world is full of companies whose founders had the foresight to recruit and work closely with top talent from the management, financial, and marketing communitites.
So remember the lesson of "Bamboo Dick" Pearse the next time you want to curse out some "marketroid" who doesn't have the same comfort levels around technology as you. His department might be the only thing that keeps your company from joining the long, long list of good business ideas that didn't quite work out.
Yet again another claim to prior art in a world stuck on 'One-up-manship'.
This is obviously related to NASA's celebration (along with the rest of us Americans) of the centennial of flight, as measured in years from the first Wright Brothers flight. Reminds me of the other stories of the italian fellow who did radio first and the british fellow who did a version of television first.
Here in America we also celebrate Independence Day on the 4rth of July (unlike many other countries), we consider Ford's Model T to be the first car (we all know it wasn't), we take credit for baseball (a derivative of cricket and many other earlier games)and claim a lot of other national achievements which are just that, American 'achievements'.
What we don't do is tell the rest of the world to celebrate these individuals or events along with us in the same way that we, as a nation, don't celebrate French holidays or Chinese new year, unless it's out of personal regard.
You can argue that we attempt to force our events and holidays down the world's throat via media, etc. but that is all subjective. An example is MY birthday. It's important to me and my friends and family but you probably don't care too much. Now if I was a celebrity you might pay attention for entertainment's sake but that's your choice.
None of these people, Wright Brothers, this Australian fellow or any of the people I mention or who were involved in the events mentioned asked for your attention. They did what they did because they wanted to achieve their goals. Who's on First? Who cares! If you think the person is interesting and should be celebrated for their achievement then do so.
It's all subjective in the end so do what you think is best, give credit based on your own views and let others do the same.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
This came as quite a shock to the Red Indians who had thought it was there all along.
(feel free to substitute Australia/Aboriginies)
I not saying that they'd shade the truth, but they definitely have an agenda in this matter.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
To be fair, the Wrights didn't build the engine.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
...it won't change history. After all, it's pretty damn historically obvious that Columbus was NOT the one to "discover" America first, yet you americans insist on promoting and celebrating this myth every single year.
When it comes down to history versus dogma, dogma wins every time.
I hate conspiracy theorists that can't think straight.
First of all, if anyone had flown, they would have gotten widespread attention, as the Wright brothers did. A dozen people saying they witnessed the first flight, but not saying anything for years, just makes no sense at all. That would be like someone having made the trans-atlantic flight before Lindberg, but not telling anybody about it... It's a ridiculous assertion.
But more to the point, let's say someone flew before the Wright brothers... Let's go to extremes an say the Mayans had the technology to build jumbo jets. What does that mean? NOTHING. The Wright brothers' flight wasn't just an interesting outting... it was the spark the led to our modern world of aviation. None of the previous tales of flights led to anything but a handful of books and videos to make some money off the gullible.
If you had even the slightest bit of proof that you'd flown before them, you wouldn't be sitting in a bar, telling your story to uninterested passers-by... You'd have gone to court right away, looking to get some of the money from the brothers' patents. But back then, decades hadn't passed, so there would still be evidence that could be investigated. Convenient that all theses incredible stories aren't brought to light until after there is no evidence left to investigate...
As for witnesses... give me a few days and I'll have hundreds of people swearing that they watched me levitate, and fly around hundreds of feet off the ground.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
No surprises there. The USA is beat out only by the old Soviet Union in its rabid determination to show that it "invented" everything from rockets (von Braun of course - Goddard was ultimately irrelevant) to the A-bomb (good old American know-how brought to you by the Europeans, natch). Any other suggestion is tantamount to treason.
At least they're open about it. Bob Novak - one of CNN's most rabidly insane Amerika Uber Alles cheerleaders - recently suggested on this very topic that any American educator who even questioned any Known Truth about American history did so soley because they "don't like" America.
Dr. Peter Jakab, a curator at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C., doesn't deny that Pearse got off the ground. "But what he flew was essentially a powered glider flying into a ravine. So it wasn't a true powered flight. He's just one of many pre-Wright claimants."
What exactly does this guy consider powered flight.
According to the article, this guy flew 140 meters (as opposed to the Wright brothers 36.6 meters). He also had elements that would not appear in US aircraft for another 20 years (such as the 3-wheeled landing gear).
And I don't know about others, but I would still consider a glider an aircraft. Especially if its a prop driven craft, with single wing, decent landing gear (even if it did not get used often), and aileron steering.
I get the feeling that there has to be an american flag on the side, or at least an american pilot before it can be considered 'Powered Flight' by the Smithsonian. Yet another uncredited first buried because it was not an american that did it.
And before you call me an 'anti-american foreigner', I'm an American too, but I believe the truth is more important than patriotism. Even if its not what you want to hear.
But unlike all the other claimants, the Wright Brothers did a lot of serious scientific research into flight before they finally got it to work on 17 December 1903.
You are forgetting they used wind tunnels to test flight characteristics on scale models, something that I don't think anyone else had. It's an idea so scientifically sound that even today aerodynamicists use wind tunnels to test airplane shapes even with access to modern supercomputers that can study aerodynamic shapes with computational fluid dynamics.
How about John Coltrane or T. Monk? Maya Angelou? Birthplace of the civil rights movement?
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
And that would make a difference if he hadn't figured out heavier than air flight a full three years after the wright brothers (1903 1906).
Is this just a question of semantics? Isn't an airplane just a glider with power? The article points out that the Wright plane had better controlled descents, so is the difference in the controllability?