Pioneers and patriotism

  Everyone knows that aviation was invented in France. That may sound like a provocation to admirers of Wilbur and Orville Wright of Dayton, Ohio, yet the French believe it and in many ways they are right. Today, on the Bagatelle field in the western Paris parkland,  we are to watch a flying machine take off in a re-enactment of the flight that is officially recorded as the world's first by an aeroplane. 

The contraption is a faithful replica of the "14bis", a boxy, bamboo-framed plane with a 50hp motor which Alberto Santos-Dumont, a Franco-Brazilian showman, coaxed into the air on the same spot in November 1906. For France and Brazil that 21-second hop over 220 metres marked the start of powered flight and the centenary is being celebrated with fanfare as such in both countries. This is a good example of how the facts can be clouded by patriotism and prejudice (yes, France-versus-USA again, I'm sorry). Yet, France has good grounds for claiming to be the main home of aviation.

                                                                        

                            

                            

The Montgolfier brothers took off in the first hot-air balloon over Paris in 1783. (Since they wore wigs, could theirs be considered the first powdered flight?). In 1890, the intrepid Clément Ader performed a brief heavier-than-air hop before witnesses in his Eole. This was a weird bat-like machine powered by a steam engine.[picture above is his unsuccessful mark 2 version].  Most of the early development of flying machines took place in France. On weekends in the early 1900s, Santos Dumont could be seen buzzing around the Eiffel Tower in a steam-powered dirigible airship [top picture]. Other pioneers were busy inventing the language of aeronautics, which remains heavily Gallic to this day (helicopter, fuselage, aileron, parachute, nacelle, canard, aviator, aerodrome, aeroplane are all French coinages)

However, the uncomfortable truth for the Santos-Dumont fans is that the Wright Brothers got their Flyer off the ground for a powered flight in December 1903, three years before the Paris-based "father of aviation". By the time of Alberto's straight-line feat three years later, the Wrights were staying aloft over North Carolina for half-hour circuits over 24 miles. They had witnesses and photographs, but they were avoiding publicity while trying to perfect the Flyer and make money out of it. It was only when they came to France in 1908 that they amazed the world with a machine that was clearly far more advanced than anything else. 

In 1906, the Aéro Club de France, the first aviation authority, registered Santos-Dumont's exploit as the first heavier-than-air craft to take off, fly over 100 metres and land under its own power. At the celebration banquet that night, Ernest Archdeacon, the club's Irish founder, said the Franco-Brazilian had "succeeded in winning glory as transcendent as any that man can aspire to in this world."
   
"He has just achieved, not in secret, not before hypothetical and unscrupulously biased witnesses, but in the clear light of day and before a crowd of people, a superb flight ... at a distance of 3 meters from the ground, thus registering a decisive event in the history of aviation."

That was an unfair swipe at the Wrights, because several of their flights had been watched by the public, including journalists. When the Wrights' advance was later confirmed, the French found a technical argument that they have stuck to ever since. The Flyer took off from a rail with the help of a shove from a catapult while Santos-Dumont's 14bis lifted off under its own power. That was true most of the time, but the Wrights did not use the catapult when the wind was strong enough.

Santos-Dumont never accepted that the Wrights certainly beat him to powered flight by three years. A few years after his first take-off, he was hard on the defensive.

To whom does humanity owe aerial navigation in heavier-than-air-machines? To the Wright brothers' experiments, made in secret ...and which were so unknown to the world that we see everybody calling my 220 meters flight a memorable minute in the history of aviation, or to Farman, Blériot or myself, we having made all of our demonstrations before scientific commissions and in broad daylight?

The argument rages on all these years later. With this month's official celebrations, the Brazilians and French have been fiercely making the case for their hero.

======

    (left) 1903 Wright Flyer, (below) Santos-Dumont's 1906 14bis replica

Update: The replica of Santos-Dumont's machine failed to repeat his flight. After a 150 metre take-off run across the Jardin de Bagatelle, in the Bois de Boulogne, the craft was just rising when the right wing folded up. Danilo Flores Fuchs, the Brazilian air force pilot who built and piloted the new 14bis, was unharmed. He blamed humidity for weakening the structure.

Comments

[colin grayson]

another level playing field argument, so to speak? ok , the wright brothers had to go to kittyhawk with it's high winds to get their aircraft off the ground without assistance , but get it off they did ! nothing to stop anyone else from doing this , was there?
I am afraid that I have little patience with the french predeliction for trying to win by looking to disqualify the opposition in some way or other ...I have yet to forget the year that a mini-cooper won the monte carlo rally , only to be disqualified because a light switch had been change ! would you believe that a french made car was then declared the winner ?

but the usa is certainly not exempt from this syndrome .......an american invented the light bulb .....some 10 years after a small town in scotland had been lit in this manner [if I understand correctly ]; and a recent visit to le bourget reminded me that they were the first to fly the atlantic ; pity it had been done almost a decade earlier by alcock and brown ...of course the field they landed in turned out to be a bog , perhaps this disqualifies them as they destroyed the aircraft , happily not themseves though! [sadly , alcock was killed in a flying accident the next year ]

but surely nobody will dispute that the USA created the national park , and that their network of natural and man made sites is a credit to the nation ; a few years ago I was at one that had a resident historian , so that I was able to ask some detailed questions ; sensing my disappointment that so much was reproduction , this lady took me aside at the end and said ...honey , this is the ~USA , we don't have history , we have myths!

but perhaps that is universal!

[Robert Marchenoir]

Haha! So the Wright brothers got off the ground using a catapult? And they are supposed to have invented aviation? That is hardly a technicality. I could get myself flying off the ground using a catapult, without the help of an airplane. Then I would stick some wings to myself in order not to break my neck when landing. That is called a glider, not a plane.

Bickering aside, I know of a philosopher's blog which has a Sunday cat picture post. This blog is on the path of having a Sunday aviation post. Nice feature.

[Isabelle]

Funny indeed, Mr. Bremner. That's exactly my own observation. BTW some French in the aeronautic buisness don't claim first ever flight heavier than air via Santos-Dumas but Clement Ader who claimed to have made a flight, well before the Wright brothers. Unfortunately (or fortunately for Ader) there haven't been any witnesses at all, as much as for the claimed flight of Mr. Weißkopf (or Whitehead), a German immigrant to the USA.
Anyhow I am deeply convinced that the Wrights were justifiedly credited with the first flight of a true aircraft.
Actually they haven't been the first to fly but their flyer showed every feature of a modern aircraft (engine, wings, steering controls). Already in the 19th century there have been motorized (by little steam engines) model aircrafts to small to carry a man but able to fly heavier than air anyway. Then George Cayley constructed a glider capable of lifting a man. Lilienthal followed this exemple and brought the gliding flight (heavier than air still) to an advanced level prooving that flight is possible.
As so often big inventions are simply the last necessary step during a long development (by trial and error in former times). Aviation is a very good exemple for that. The Wrights probably would never have managed to fly without the manuscripts of Lilienthal and others which they had studied.
And even if the French did not invent the air plane, what does it matter? Nothing. Why is it so important to claim the achievement of one man. In the last it's an individual achievement, not that of a community.

[Charles Couprie]

What about the franco-american rivalry relating to the invention of cinema, at the same time?

Kitty Hawk, Eole, Lilienthal... I can breathe in this post the wonderful smell, not of aether, but engine shops.

In my opinion, aviation is neither the achievement of one, nor a nation, but of a community of passionate weirdos.

[michael robertson]

There is no doubt that France had much to contribute to early development of aviaition. M Bleriot's cross channel flight was an epoch making achievement, and in a sense had a role in ending the perceived isolation of the UK from continetal Europe. Notice that i did say continental Europe, many Brits refer to Europe as something to which the UK does not belong! To respond to Charles Couprie, of course aviaition is the achievement of passionate wierdos! I notice Charles Couprie did acknowledge, however unintentionally that aviaition is an achievement. Well you would have had to have been half mad in order to explore the complexities and uncertainties of all sorts of flight in the early days, both powered and unpowered! Mr Couprie forgets that many paritipants of sport aviation do so in an unpowered manner, in the form of gliding, hang-gliding, and paragliding, the developmentin which France has played a major role! Anyway, whats wrong with engine shops? Commercial aviation only contributes 2% of all hydro-carbon emissions, for which it has become an undeserving target for the enviro-hysterics, who see it as a very visible, and easily targeted activity of the industrialised world. If all aviation was halted, it would make no appreciable difference to the course of Global warming, when compared to the relentless advances in indistrialisation of China, and India. Despite this fact, aviation is roundly condemmned on every occasion as being the major culprit of global warming! A sense of perspective here would be in order, I think!

[Charles Couprie]

Hello Mr Robertson and thank you for your answer. Actually I had no special thought about the global warming in my comment. I used the words "engine shops" because I found them in a dictionary as the translation of "atelier". I'm a glider pilot and I grew up on a little provincial airfield. Actually I was more talking about the smell of woods, glue, paint and canvas than oil and motors (even if it's fine too).
Although I wasn't born at the time of "daisies' reapers" (faucheurs de marguerites) as we call the pioneers of aviation, I was strongly impressed in my chidhood by the "atmosphere" of those shops where planes are built, flights are dreamed (and bottles emptied), especially during cold winters and bad weather days), waiting for a bright interval. For a child, this long waiting time is maybe linked with a desire of emancipation ("pouvoir voler de ses propres ailes") and is a kind of pioneer era.

[jon carr farrelly]

Actually the Wright's did not use a catapult at Kittyhawk, the conditions on the beach did not require such assistance. They did use the catapult back home in Ohio so they could make flight tests pretty much whenever they desired...which they did.

The biggest difference between the Wright's aircraft and others is not that they got into the air...this feat had been accomplished previously for short distances, rather it was the fact that their aircraft was controllable and was not limited to making short hops in a straight line.

I agree with M.Couprie, aviation is the child of many fathers...and a few mothers.

Cheers, Jon

[michael robertson]

Hello Charles Couprie, I obviously misinterpreted your submission, so I apologise for that, I assumed you were being dismissive of the enthusiasm of the many aviation enthusiasts that you have over in France, and worldwide, I now realise that you are evidently an enthusiast. I hope you continue to have many years of enjoyable gliding experiences to come!

[charles couprie]

Hello Mr Robertson. You have not totally misinterpreted my comment as I read it again. I am still enthousiast of course but I have to admit that the "atmosphere" of the early years has totally disappeared (a lost golden age?) and I must be a bit nostalgic of the past. The spirit I have known in a little "aéro-club" where a group of passionates built everything from nothing left place to another mentality: cold or polite individualism, consumer's behaviour, regulation, and snobbery. It's a tendency, it's not general. But Icarus definitely lies at the bottom of the sea. We now live an age of comfort. Thanks to the pioneers!
Is this still aviation?

[Swift]

For those of you interested in both the history of aviation and good literature, try dipping into William Boyd's The Blue Afternoon - like all his books, it's a great read.

[michael robertson]

I see what you are saying, and yes, you are right to question as to whether modern flying of all sorts still represents aviation! Well, it is different, that's all, without the early passion, discovery, and terrible risk of the early years, so now it is a lot safer, if rather over regulated perhaps, expensive, and accessible to a wider range of ability! You are lucky to have experienced, and survived, the earlier days! Some pilots do build their own planes today, mostly from kits, but still very challenging, and time consuming, often stretching to thousands of hours! Microlight, Hang-gliding & Paragliding (Ultra-legere, Vol-Libre et Parapente) flying is probably more like the sort of flying enjoyed in the past, having only recently emerged from their own pioneering days. Thanks to the pioneers of all types, indeed!

[Mark Berninger]

The Wrights' achievement was not powered flight but controlled flight. Their patent application was based on their 1902 glider not the more famous 1903 Flyer. They figured out wing warping, and its coordination with the rudder to correct roll and to allow for controlled turning without loss of altitude. They solved other problems of flight control. They also corrected the equations for wing shape and thereby greatly improved the lift from their wings. They understood that controlling the plane was key and that it needed to be dynamic. They didn't even try to build a powered plane until they were confident that they understood how to control the plane. Their familiarity with bicycle design surely helped. They also tested their designs in a wind tunnel and measured the forces on their prototype models. Santos Dumont was a smart and very brave man and after learning from the pioneering work of the Wrights made important advances in aviation. The Wrights suffered from a stubborn attachment to their initial designs and within a decade left behind.
While by even 1913 planes looked very different from the Flyer all planes, even today, incorporate the control principles embodied in the 1902 Wright glider, and the Flyer.
Besides who cares what nationality the Wrights were?

[Stephen Wolf]

Dear Charles Bremner,

I enjoyed your article, because I now live in France and know exactly how sensitive the French are to the insinuation that the Les Fréres Wright were RIGHT! Yet, when indeed the Wright Flyer was flown at Le Mans, France in August 1908, a French aeronaut was heard to say, “We are children compared to Les Fréres Wright”.

The success of the Wright brothers is more than control of powered flight. They were the first aeronautical engineers the world had ever seen! They experimented in a methodical manner, and took on what were then impossible tasks. Nothing was allowed to stand in their way! Building an internal combustion engine from scratch in 6 months, and evolving efficient air propellers, these scientific achievements all contributed to those 12 seconds at Kittyhawk, without the help of a catapult (sorry my French colleagues...).

Alberto Santos Dumont definitely sparked an enthusiasm for aviation, and sowed the idea amongst Europeans that yes man could fly. He was a pioneer, and his place in aviation history is assured. Clement Ader on the other hand has given us only beautiful works of art, that resembled bats, and have no connection to what we now know as aeronautical engineering. The Avion is a beautiful example of his work, that has been hanging from a ceiling in Paris since 1901. The highest it ever got off the ground incidently.

Returning to the Santos-Dumont 14bis, this heavier-than-air apparatus (as it was described at the time), could be called a powered kite, since it has a wing made up of Hargrave’s box-kites. The fact it flew “backwards” and the pilot stood in a wicker basket completely exposed, is all part of the fascination with this Brazilian adventurer. Alas, the centenary celebrations did not go according to plan, see:
http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com/news/Centenary_recreation_of_the_flight_by_Brazilian_Alberto_SantosDumont_in_14bis_news_102248.html
Nevertheless, the crowd at Champs de Bagatelle witnessed first-hand, the frailty of man’s first attempts to fly.

[Philippe]

Lilienthal made took a man above ground with heavier-than-air apparatus, but without an engine, Ader had an engine, but steam engine, and his very heavy Avion could only leave the groung thanks to a gust of wind, the Wright brothers replaced the steam engine with a petrol engine, and bended their wings to control the flight, but still needed the wind to fly. Santos invented the flaps, a much more efficient way to control flight, still in use today...
What make the difference between a plane or a non-plane ? The efficience of the engine, or of the steering devices, or the ability to fly without the help of the wind ? Every inventor made an extra step in the right direction, and it is pointless to try to define which step was the defining one...
The same could be said of the invention of the train, the car, photography, cinema, the computer...

[William Longyard]

1. Ader didn't fly he may have "hopped" for a moment. His many post facto mistatements are also well-documented.
2. The Wright's didn't use a catapult, but a rail in 1903.The flights that used a catapult were conducted in Ohio, not Kittyhawk. By 1905 they were doing what the French couldn't do until 1908 (Farman's figure-8 at Issy-les-Moulineaux).
3. Santos-Dumont's work DERIVED from his learning of the Wright's work via Octave Chanute's visit to Europe post-1903.
4. Santos-Dumont's dirigibles were NOT steam powered as CB claimed, rather they were petrol-engined.
6. The Weisskopf (Whitehead) claims are unsubstantiated, and modern "recreations" are as worthwhile as predicting the results of a football game after the match has ended.