The forward elevator was not a mistake, but a careful design choice that probably saved Wilbur's life a couple of times. It has a remarkable property that is especially relevant for slow-speed flight: flat stalls.
You can see this for yourself if you buy a dimestore balsa glider. Take the weight off of the front and put it on the back. Then take the vertical tail off of the back and put it where the pilot goes (or tape it to the front). Now fly it backwards.
What you'll find, after some twiddling with the wing position, is a couple of effects. First, notice how it stalls. When a "normal" elevator-in-back plane stalls, it next dives, often straight into the ground. But in the elevator-in-front design, the smaller front wing stalls before the main wing; in losing its lift, it falls first and the main wing may not stall at all. The result, as you can see with your glider, is that when such an aircraft stalls, it does not dive, but instead "floats" downward. That's a safety feature not lost on the Wrights.
Next, notice that you can make your reverse glider just a stable as the original tail dragger design. You'll find that you have to set the wing a little farther back of the CG. (Ie, make the elevator farther forward.) The elevator-in-front design is not inherently unstable!
The Wright's 1903 Flyer wasn't passively stable, but they improved their design. Look at their 1905 and subsequent Flyers and you'll see that the forward elevator was much farther forward. Now you now why.
Finally, the Wright's weren't "wrong" in making their Flyer unstable. What they did was make the pilot part of the stability loop. That is, the pilot had to actively apply control to make the aircraft stable. In the following years, it was not at all clear that passive stability was better; indeed unstable aircraft can react and turn much faster. The debate continued for several years before the advantages of passive stability were understood. But passively unstable designs have some advantages; some modern fighter aircraft are unstable, but use computers to actively stabilize the machine.
Slashdot Mirror
You can see this for yourself if you buy a dimestore balsa glider. Take the weight off of the front and put it on the back. Then take the vertical tail off of the back and put it where the pilot goes (or tape it to the front). Now fly it backwards.
What you'll find, after some twiddling with the wing position, is a couple of effects. First, notice how it stalls. When a "normal" elevator-in-back plane stalls, it next dives, often straight into the ground. But in the elevator-in-front design, the smaller front wing stalls before the main wing; in losing its lift, it falls first and the main wing may not stall at all. The result, as you can see with your glider, is that when such an aircraft stalls, it does not dive, but instead "floats" downward. That's a safety feature not lost on the Wrights.
Next, notice that you can make your reverse glider just a stable as the original tail dragger design. You'll find that you have to set the wing a little farther back of the CG. (Ie, make the elevator farther forward.) The elevator-in-front design is not inherently unstable!
The Wright's 1903 Flyer wasn't passively stable, but they improved their design. Look at their 1905 and subsequent Flyers and you'll see that the forward elevator was much farther forward. Now you now why.
Finally, the Wright's weren't "wrong" in making their Flyer unstable. What they did was make the pilot part of the stability loop. That is, the pilot had to actively apply control to make the aircraft stable. In the following years, it was not at all clear that passive stability was better; indeed unstable aircraft can react and turn much faster. The debate continued for several years before the advantages of passive stability were understood. But passively unstable designs have some advantages; some modern fighter aircraft are unstable, but use computers to actively stabilize the machine.