Santos Dumont, Wright Brothers, and Propeller Basics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- This started off as a video on propellers, then took a turn towards early aviation history and myth busting.
In regards to propellers, I'll cover blade angle, pitch, aspect ratio, efficiency and more.
In regards to history I cover some myths about early aviation and the efforts of the Louis Bleriot, Santos Dumont, the Wright brothers and more.
Before anyone says anything, yes I know the difference between a blimp and a dirigible. However many of Dumont's designs including No. 9 are described as both blimps and Dirigibles and I couldn't find the plans to them, so I used both terms. Also, there is a middle ground in which some airships used blimps with a keel beam.
Please support the channel:
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplane...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
Note: This is the second upload of this video. The first was visible to Patreons only. I made some changes to the public version based on Patreon suggestions. The primary changes were to subtitles, which are now easier to read and on screen a bit longer before fading out.
I want to clarify that I'm a fan of Santos Dumont, and think he should be honored and remembered for what he did. He was a brave, intelligent, and noble man. He solved many problems regarding use of gasoline piston engines on aircraft which caused the French to jump ahead of the world in aircraft engine technology in the early 1900s. He also gave France a head start in airframe building skills with his airships, along with his 14Bis and 14Bis-2. So once they knew the secrets of the Wrights they could jump into building airplanes with both feet and get the lead on the rest of the world. Just because I don't think he invented the airplane doesn't mean that I don't think he should be remembered as a hero.
People also forget the Wrights invented the wind tunnel and had to correct lots of data regarding airfoils. People simply fail to realize just how much work the Wrights did to advance aviation. Airfoils, wind tunnels, propellers, engines, 3 axis control, etc. Their attempts at secrecy and trying to patent all of aviation was a mistake afterwards though. I've read the Wright Flyer was capable of crossing the Mediterranean before Bleriot even crossed the English channel for example. And Wilbur had been offered $5000 to cross the English Channel as well, but refused claiming it was a wreckless stunt. Wish he'd just asked if one of his pilots was interested. The Wright Flyer was superior to so many other designs for many years.
But I agree none the less, others did contribute to the advancement of aviation and should be recognized for that. I myself didn't know that much about Dumont prior to this video. What is interesting to me is that many people, Wrights included, had successfully flown heavier than air gliders for many years prior to 1903, but it was the "powered" heavier than air flight that was important. With multiple people achieving glider flight, it baffles me that so many others didn't seem to pay attention to the gliders, and what enabled them to fly. Seems many "hop" designs didn't pay much attention to the gliders. Considering this was a key part of the Wrights approach, I wonder if anyone else would have gotten closer than they did had they paid attention to those a bit more. But, many gliders had little to no control either, so perhaps not. The Wrights just asked the correct questions that others never did, as stated in the video.
@@SoloRenegade Consider what might have happened had Lilienthal not crashed. He _might_ have beaten them by a whisker, but I have a gut feeling that he would have been an empirical hero rather than a methodical one.
Well stated.
Greg : "I'm a fan of Santos Dumont"
You mean you are the propeller?
@@SoloRenegade
The Wrights didn’t simply invent the airplane. They, if not invented, _codified_ Aeronautical engineering
lol, the video isn't even up and I already have thumbs down. I knew this video would upset some people, but I didn't know it would do it just with the title and thumbnail.
There are just those people who really hate propeller basics
Turbines are the future!
The same types who feel that Tesla didn't get enough (all) of the credit have attached themselves to Santos-Dumont. As though he is some sort of underdog, lol. Besides, the Wrights' work was well documented in all the best apiary journals...
Brazilians get triggered just by having the name of the Wright brothers mentioned, that's a sad reality when we get taught at school, TV, government publications and museums that the inventor of the airplane was Santos Dumont. It has become a question of national pride, even at the fifth year of engineering (where we could expect genuine interest in the matter and academic knowledge of fluid mechanics to make sense of all that) I have difficulty finding anybody that recognises any flight by the Wrights as having actually happened (or alternatively they say "a catapult is not a plane")
@@eduardocharlier7560 exactly they are in deep denial
The Wright brothers also built their own wind tunnel and are responsible for the pedals not falling off your bike by working out that you need the thread pitch to be opposite on each pedal.
It took me forever to figure out the pedal thread thing because it seems backwards to me. Wasn't until a few years ago that I saw a youtube video explaining it that I finally understood why.
Dang, I didn't realize they were the ones who figure that out.
That's one of those things that is so simple that you just assume it always existed, but was probably a huge problem until someone actually figured it out.
@@wingracer1614 cars used to have left and right hand threads for wheels too, until nuts with conical or tapered contact faces were used. I wish bicycle pedals used conical faces...
Too bad that wind tunnel was invented 30 years before by Wenham.
As a retired Aeronautical Engineer, I have to tell you that your presentations and your analysis are so excellent! I believe that you present a lot of difficult things in a manner that anyone should be able to understand.
I am french and here no one claims Santos Dumont made the first flight. There were claims that Clément Ader was the first but when you see the "Avion 3" there is no way this machine could ever fly.
I didn't even want to get in to the Adler debate. France's claim to fame with aviation is that they were the first country to really embrace it, and as a result, they were the leaders in aviation up until at least WW1 and arguable into the 1920s.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles did I mention your video is awesome? Learned so much.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Majorbett: Greg, are you saying that Ader's
eole and Avion prototypes inspired a generation of would be aeronauts? That is what the Brazilian's claim that Santos-Dumont did.
See this video:
@Johannes914: "No one in France claims Santos Dumont made the first flight."
SB: That may be an overstatement. Do you have any supporting
evidence?
The Brazilian's claim that everyone in France believed this in the early 1900's and the existence of the historical markers, particularly the
monolith at the Bagatelle game field where the first official flight took place in 1906 proves this.
They also believe that everyone in every country other than America agrees with them. When residents of other countries disagree it is because of American propaganda and ignorance.
@Renaldo Borges, @elias lima, @j b, @Jindle Spong
@memorialriflerange,
I am surprised that no one has used modern knowledge to build a lookalike AVION model that did fly. There is a look-alike SD 14 BIS that can fly in circles.
Bleriot built and flew an odd looking airplane in 1909.
@@stevebett4947 but with modern propeller not original.
Me: I am really tired. Should I go to bed, or get a snack first?
YT: _Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles_
Me: oooooohhhhhhhh nnnnnnnooooooooooooo
Me: **glances at video length**
YT: 50:44
Me: uuuuuuuuggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh
Also me: I should get a big snack. **clicks on thumbnail**
(don't change the the video length btw, I actually like your level of detail)
Its ok to fall asleep. You can see it again.
@@clayz1 Not ok, he will fall behind and we'll all have to wait for him to catch up.🤣
Taking your personal airship out on dates, and then taking the ladies out to breakfast you say?
Best use ever of a dirigible indeed!
Reid, we are on the same page.
Dude sure was a baller...
I hate to put you guys off, but Dummont was more or less assexual. He had only one known crush in his entire life, and if took a lady out in his dirigible, she was more than probably a nice company over coffee and was safely delivered back home the next day. Untouched lol.
I loved the video, BTW ☺️
Greg, I thought it was amazing of you to actually take the time and effort to respond to all of those things, but sadly, Dummont is something like a revered figure IN Brazil, mostly due to the fact that the schools teach us that he was the actual inventor of the heavier-than-air machine we all come to know and love as the airplane.
And sadly this trend will go on into the foreseeable future. They even teach us THAT Dummont invented the worst watch with Cartier, something which had already existed for some time.
I grant you that he was indeed a visionary for his own time, had wonderful ideas about in any number of fields. His house in a city called Petrópolis is nothing short of amazing, and very excentric, but his vision regarding airplanes and the future weren't way too idealistic. A great man, but definitely not the first to fly and some people over here have a bit of a problem understanding that.
I have heard the argument that he was asexual, homosexual or whatever. I'm not buying it. He literally had a blimp docked at his apartment for going on dates. We know he took women on these dates, and even let one fly his blimp. She was probably the first female aviator at that point. Not that I care about his personal life, but the way I see it, the evidence shows that he was quite a lady's man, private about it, but definitely liked the ladys.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Especially in regards to Dumont. Instead of being recognized for his actual accomplishments, he’s credited as “The guy who was cheated by the Wright Brothers.”
The British are just about as bad, they blame Americans for stealing all their great ideas, so they can serve their egos by claiming they invented everything - despite achieving nearly nothing in aviation since 1939.
I recall a conversation with an engineer from Wright-Patterson after publication of one of the naive stories claiming that Gustave Whitehead had flown before the Wrights. The man snorted and pointed to the prop in a photo of Whitehead's creation. "It's not an airfoil," the engineer said. "If the prop isn't an airfoil, he didn't fly with it." Pretty much true.
That's a good point.
@Don Balduf
DB: "If the prop isn't an airfoil, he didn't fly with it."
SB: Whitehead would have had a comeback,
It wouldn't have satisfied the engineer but it was enough for the reporters.
You don't need an airfoil prop to fly.
You do need more power to overcome the inefficiency of a paddle prop.
You can also fly without airfoil wings.
There were two look alike replicas that were built using
a modern engine with power that matched Whitehead's claims and with modern (airfoil) props.
With the modern additions, the contraption hopped
a considerable distance without crashing.
@@stevebett4947 one such aircraft is housed and maintained just a few miles from my home at Dayton-Wright Brothers Airport. I’ve seen it many times in the air and static. The pilots say it’s rather a different beast from a modern aircraft but flies well as long as its flying characteristics are known and respected.
@@stevebett4947 Except he didn't have excess power.
Brazillian here.
I have to apologize for the comments made before this, which I'm fairly sure were made by my fellow countryman. The fact that "Santos Dummont invented the airplane, not the americans" is widely taught here in primary schools and the idea is also propagated by science museums and such. It has become wrapped up in nationalistic pride. People with very little understanding of the history of aviation will, nonetheless, come rushing out to point out that "Actually, Santos Dummont invented the airplane" like it was an article of faith.
We should totally still celebrate his acomplishments and all that, but I wish people wouldn't let national pride blind them.
His ascend to "Pai da Aviação" as a political and grudge move.
Powerful figures that had no understanding of aviation still refused to recognize the Wrights. Their recognition would meant that Dumont was no longer the first to fly and they used pride as a fuel to their denial.
And "Pai da Aviação" was a powerful icon to instigate patriotism. Patriotism is a very powerful weapon to manipulate the population and politicians could not let it go.
They choose propagated those false information and use it to distract the population away from their thievery and crimes.
Those false information still deeply rooted on our culture to this day.
@@vitor900000 We have our own big lies from politicians but so far they have have lacked an aviation connection.
That hasn't prevented some Brazilian critics of the Wright Brothers to argue that the belief that America
has to be first in all things that prevents them from
recognizing that Santos Dumont was first.
@Greg's Automobiles and Airplanes,
The Wrights were first in 1903. Dumont got into the air in 1906. All three men were brilliant problem solvers. Much credit goes to Dumont for advancing aviation. The same can’t be said of the Wrights as they wanted to patent their research. The Wrights however were the first to understand and then accomplish powered and controlled flight on December 17, 1903. The first attempt was on December 14, 1903, but the weather was not favorable.
@@Machia52612 Why are you shunning the Wright Brothers just because they applied for several patents? They were inventors. That’s how you protect intellectual property that is the result of sometimes a life’s worth of work and dedication.
Wright brothers, 1903: Even a stone launched by a catapult can fly and be photographed during the "flight" in the opinion of the Americans. Flyer Replicas; Can't fly. (Maybe the catapult replicas aren't quite good enough.
Santos Dumont, 1906 Bagatelle field, France: Real flight footage with takeoff carried out using the engine's own thrust and witnessed by a crowd of French citizens and reporters. Replicas of the 14 Bis: Can fly and it has already been proven on video No more comments.
Try this: The Wright brother's flight did not count as they did not exceed Mach 1 on their first flight in accordance with USAF contract specs of the 1950s.
Good satire. I got into an argument with a Brazilian who claimed that Cayley did not fly because he didn't
comply with the 1905 French FAI standards.
I asked how could he comply with a standard that didn't exist in
Cayley made no claim to being the first to fly. It was just an experiment to satisfy his
curiosity. He is said to flown 900 ft. using an 8 hp engine and his chauffeur as his test pilot.
His conclusion was that the technical requirements for manned flight would take time.
He didn't specify a date but other aviation pioneers predicted that manned flight would be achieved as early as 1950. in the 1800's, few believed that manned flying machine was possible.
Cayley correctly predicted (c. 1800) that sustained flight would not occur until a lightweight engine was developed to provide adequate thrust and lift. The Wright brothers acknowledged his importance to the development of aviation.
Sir George Cayley, (1773 - 1857) was an English engineer, inventor, and aviation pioneer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cayley
In your dream stop crying 1 Year old kid is salty 😁
@@mikuhatsune8121 you failed to recognize a very obvious joke someone wrote more than two years ago.
Be more cautious throwing insults around in future.
@@joearnold6881 in your dream stop crying 1 Year old kid is salty 😁
Try this: Wright brothers, 1903: Even a stone launched by a catapult can fly and be photographed during the "flight" in the opinion of the Americans. Flyer Replicas; Can't fly. (Maybe the catapult replicas aren't quite good enough.
Santos Dumont, 1906 Bagatelle field, France: Real flight footage with takeoff carried out using the engine's own thrust and witnessed by a crowd of French citizens and reporters. Replicas of the 14 Bis: Can fly and it has already been proven on video No more comments.
Having gone to school in Brazil, I had to learn that Dumont was in fact the "real" inventor of the aeroplane. Getting more and more interested in technology and aviation, that initially set picture obviously began to crumble, the more facts were accumulated.
The discussion about the Wright brothers is only led by people, who don't care to look at the knowledge and engineering performed by the respective individuals. While most "pioneers" relied on guesswork, the Wrights were actually analysing every aspect separately.
Let's remember in fairness to Dumont, he did do a lot, and for some reason he doesn't get credit for his actual achievements.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles which is why propping up Dumont, a great and respectable pioneer in his own sense, against the Wright brothers does him an unfair disservice. Agreed.
Conhecimento e engenharia? Kkkkk
O flyers I que supostamente vôo em 1903 pesava 340Kg, a potência do motor era de apenas 12 HP!
Me explica como eles voaram?
Se hoje sabemos que e impossível voar com esses números!
@@gghhhfghgh yes. It would help your understanding of the Wright brothers' work to look past the numbers of the Wright Flier I and fully appreciate the experimental cataloguing of airfoils and calculation factors.
@@daszieher Ninguém está negando a contribuição Wright para aviação só que após 1908!
Até onde sei aviação da Europa era mais avançada e cresceu independente dos Estados Unidos que era atrasado!
Motivo dos atrasos os Wright processavam qualquer um que tentava voar!
E o primeiro a voar oficialmente nós Estados Unidos foi Glee Curtis!
Greg is the jedi master of explaining aviation concepts and technology.
Oh, thanks.
There are a few channels on RUclips that are simply marvelous. This is one of 'em. Thank you.
Thanks.
I am left speachless. Thank you for posting this video. I can't even imagine the amount of work you put in to it. Thank you.
Langley used a catapult too, no one criticized him for that.
@428 Renegade: Langley used a catapult too, no one criticized him for that.
@SB: We have the video of the Langley's catapult in action.
It didn't conform to the Brazilian expectations.
It couldn't make pigs or shit or or anything fly.
The Langley-Manley Aerodyne prototype just came to the end of the linear catapult
and dropped into the Potomac without flying at all..
Langley's model Aerodrome, however, did complete a successful flight.
and was photographed by Alexander Graham Bell.
Langley used a spring catapult. The Wright derrick catapult was different.
Links: video.
Langley Aerodrome: ruclips.net/video/M-5DeIvOJ7Y/видео.html
I think the video is included in one of Greg's videos.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley_Aerodrome Oct. 7, 1903
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Samuel_Pierpont_Langley__-Potomac_experiment_1903.jpeg/375px-Samuel_Pierpont_Langley-__Potomac_experiment_1903.jpeg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aviation
First Flight: web.archive.org/web/20110104020557/history.nasa.gov/monograph27.pdf
www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Wright_Story/Inventing_the_Airplane/Darkest_Hour/Darkest_Hour.htm
@SanPol, @j b, @Jindle Spong,
@Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles @Açúcar Chocolate, @MrBelo,
@majorbett, @rjn bonif, @pipe cigar, @danieldbd,
@Gilberto Nedel Junior, @No Brainer Languages,
@rocknroll, @Selma Nedel, @harpiasonhadora sonhadora,
@Marco Papa, @Anubis, @Ma-At, @majorbett,
@Renaldo Borges, @elias lima, Maria Luiza Wiethaeuper
@@stevebett4947 Doesn't matter, he used a catapult, and that is the whole point. And just because the plane never flew from the catapult, doesn't mean the catapult didn't work or couldn't launch a flying machine successfully.
@@SoloRenegade the catapult could launch a flying machine...
SB: The issue is how this particular type of catapult worked.
There are different catapults
that will launch anything (e.g., a large trebuchet).
The linear catapult will accelerate objects but the lift
has to be provided by wings or an airfoil shape.
@@stevebett4947 One, I know how an airplane flies, and two, I'm well aware of what a catapult is and how they work, and the many types. But, for the sake of my original comment, the exact type and method of operation of the catapult is/was of no concern.
@@SoloRenegade As I recall Greg's comment was.
"If the plane won't fly, the catapult won't make it fly."
The linear catapult does not supply any lift.
Lift is provided by the wing's angle of attack
and by the wing's camber and airfoil.
Camber is defined as the convexity of the curve of an
airfoil from the leading edge to the trailing edge.
Camber is usually designed into an airfoil
to maximize its lift coefficient.
Maximum lift is achieved at the stall angle.
or just below the angle of attack that results in a stall.
A typical lift coefficient is 1.5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camber_(aerodynamics)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_coefficient
Thank you for such a great historic video! As a teacher of history and airplane buff for over fifty years, I find your quality of research and knowledge to be amazing! Again. thank you for such a great video and history lesson. I used to hate being the only one out in the wilderness saying many of the things you state, but not nearly as well!
That was my problem in high school. My parents would never let me use the blimp.
I had a blimp in high school...Oh, wait...That was my girlfriend. Fortunately, she never let me get to first base with her so I didn't knock her up.
The comedian Gallagher flew a blimp in his shows, when I was in high school
The Wright's strength was experimentation with models and developing the science before proceeding fusing theory and experimentation. They were not merely tinkerer inventors but methodical engineers.
An excellent debunking video for those who do not understand the engineering of aviation especially the fluid dynamics and mechanical design. Prior to this people built what looked good without getting quantitative and scalable data as the Wright's did than their predecessors as well as developing knowledge of the material science to actually build the craft.
preemptively liked
Same
always
Never disappointed.
It was a pretty safe bet, lol. The dude delivers.
11 Frenchmen disagree apparently
I'm brazilian and I thank you for your research and clarification on this topic. Very enlightening.
Gotta lay down the context first and dispel misinformation before we get to the next juicy video. It's what I love about your videos and work ethic Greg, you are thorough.
Another splendid history and technical video. I look forward very much to Part Two.
As a student in university for aeronautics and currently studying the origins of flight, I greatly appreciated this presentation! I’ll be forwarding it to my professor.
Forward Gregs' entire library! This man should be in all aeronautical classrooms!
Does long & thin work for you?
If you want to find out about the origins of flight you MUST study the romanian contribution to the aviation: Traian Vuia, Aurel Vlaicu, Henri Coandă...
@@bububaba8727 How should you do this if you don't speak or read Romanian?
From Wikipedia
Traian Vuia was the first to demonstrate that a flying machine could rise into the air by running on wheels on an ordinary road.[2] He is credited with a powered hop of 11 m (36 ft) made on 18 March, 1906, and he later claimed a powered hop of 24 m (79 ft).[3][4] Though unsuccessful in sustained flight, Vuia's invention influenced Louis Blériot in designing monoplanes.
SB The 79 ft. hop would be enough to win the Archdeacon prize. . . . If he had done it before Santos Dumont (also in 1906).
@@stevebett4947 well...wikipedia is on english too :-) The flight of Traian Vuia is on of the best documented historical flight, there are plenty of pictures and articles on the time papers available in internet. Enjoy!
When a bicycle won't get you out of Dayton fast enough.
'Dayton - A graveyard with streetlights.' ;-)
Louis Bleriot's mustache had a better aspect ratio than his early propellers.
He literally had the solution right under his nose
Well played, monsieur, well played!
Amazing how the Wrights knew that slowing down the prop will get them better efficiency. Even today that's something that seems too counter-intiutive to many.
We see the importance of efficiency but it has two sides.
Some anti-Wright activists claim that the prop was slowed down to the RPM of a ceiling
fan and implied that the thrust was also about the same as a ceiling fan.
Their conclusion, the Wright Flyer could not possibly fly.
Drag would be greater than Thrust.
We know that a spring scale was used to measure static thrust on the 1903 flyer.
Does anyone know how much thrust a ceiling fan can produce?
It uses flat paddle props so it can't be very efficient.
@@mcs699 There are disadvantages to using the 3rd person point of view but it seemed appropriate when commenting on
a debate. Can you make my point better in the first person?
Example of a 3rd person POV:
"A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein
I guess because bicycles are about efficiency. A mountain bike vs a road bike.
@@stevebett4947 Static thrust is meaningless. It is thrust in the air with the proper combination of revolution rate and forward speed that matters.
@@aeromodeller1 The Wrights measured static thrust every time they changed props. If the new prop was not pulling enough on their simple spring gauge it probably would not produce enough thrust to get the 1903 flyer in the air. The Wrights' were minimalists. The engine produced just enough power to compensate for the headwind. The revolution rate was fixed at a very low ( ) RPM and an 8 to 16 hp engine wasn't going to produce much forward speed. Prop efficiency was important and they didn't have a better way to determine if it would be as high as their calculations.
Congrats for such a great work Greg. Good to see Dumonts work appreciated,
Thanks Edvar, I'm glad you see it that way. I am a fan of Dumont, I with he would get credit for the things he did, but nobody every brings that stuff up because they are so focused on trying to say he invented the airplane.
Is it weird that the most fascinating part of this video to me, was seeing a picture of a Grumman Avenger launching out a hangar deck?
I know, right?
As chance has it, just a couple days ago me and a friend started building a steam engine meant to power a little RC boat. Yesterday he asked me, can we perhaps make our boat propeller for that ourself, instead of buying something from a store - "how hard can it be to make a propeller?" :D
Easy to make a junk one, it's really freaking difficult to make a good one but it can be done. I've never made one from scratch but in my RC boat days I did a lot of prop modifying. Even had little jigs for precisely measuring pitch at every point of the blade.
@@wingracer1614 Yeah I think we'll give it a go, but keep the store-bought one at hand "just for reference" (meaning if ours doesn't work well, in goes the plastic part) - a luxury that the Wrights literally didn't have; all the "store bought" ones which the most intelligent and knowledgable experts on the subject had developed so far, were garbage.
@@decnet100 Making one yourself is often also a lot of fun and probably more fun than making a pre fabricated one.
@@martijn9568 Cheers, will try :) Not sure if from brass or plastic though. Definitely filing will be involved :)
@@decnet100 Serious question... Could you 3D print a prop for an RC boat? It might take some of the fun out of "making" one, but it would be a cheap way to try a few different designs.
“A human cyclist can produce 1000 watts for maybe a minute” Thank you for the flattering estimate 😸
Only a very strong human cyclist.
Consider the fact that the AC75 yachts need 6 to 8 men just to produce some power to operate them. A about 2hp engine would give more power easily.
@@hurri7720 Yes, by definition, 1 hp is 745.7 watts, so 2hp = 1491.4 watts
Continous 200w/85kg mass = realistic 35kph in aerodynamic position riding on a flat plane. . No human powered flying machine works in this power enveloppe.
Hey there fellow aviation nerds - I am one of you and also a former amateur bicycle racer from the times of power meters. Watt output is heavily tied to body size and weight. It’s very similar to gasoline engines. More displacement is analogous to more muscle and a larger frame. Elite male cyclists with height and weight above average, along with thorough conditioning can produce a steady 300 watts or more for as long as 30 minutes. Cycling usually does allow for periods of rest and recovery, so using a long flat course like a triathlete would use might give the best comparison to aircraft engines. 800+ watts output is what would be measured in a sprint or burst of effort. Once again muscle mass is heavily in play. The most powerful sprinters are track racers and road race sprint specialists. The best professionals can ride over 100 miles continuously in a group, and produce 1600+ watts for several seconds at the end.
The guy that flew a human powered plane across the English channel radioed to his crew about half way across that he just couldn't go on. They told him about all the sharks and he made it!
Greg, you need to consider the possibility that the incorrect arguments are not because of ignorance; they are because of ACTIVE MALICE.
Hmm, I hadn't considered that, but I'm afraid you may be correct. It fits a pattern I see.
I have found that the opposite of the cliche true: "Never attribute to stupidity, that which is adequately explained through malice." The original cliche of dismissing any notion of malice is too often the escape of the cowardly. Pardon the presumption, but I think Greg has been well aware of the possibility that the misrepresentations are intentional, rather than innocent "mistakes". That the actors are well aware that their arguments are in bad faith.
The same has been true of many such lies in aviation history. One of the more famous ones involve the lies about the Moon Landing being "faked". What's important about these lies is to duly recorded and repeatedly plastered on the people who trumpeted them. Even now, everyone from former Jewish Nomenklatura to Japanese Aeronautical engineers are trying to foist their slander on the shoulders of a single American engineer of all things - eager to pretend they were victims rather than perpetrators. The attempts to sully the achievement of the Moon Landings were mostly foreign in origin and drive in worldwide media, academia, and yes professional culture (even American engineers and pilots disgraced themselves and sold out their country by shrinking back at the accusations of their supposed foreign "colleagues", rather than turning their backs on these ).
They know that to continue pumping out new Lies, their old Lies need to be forgotten or swept away - like a Global Cooling/Warming/Change Con-Artist hoping the new generation never learns of their long, unbroken record of failed predictions, prognostications and deceptions.
Thus the importance of histriography; to record not just the original history and how its telling changes over time, but also the LIES about history and how THEY change over time.
It is important to remember the Truth - and those who were Wright.
The flip-side is that it is also important to remember the Lies - and the Liars.
I didn't believe you until I had a run in with a group dedicated to "disproving" the brothers. Yes, they exist.
They lie through their teeth and pretend to have all the reason. May God help their souls.
Man I sure have run into that a lot over the years. You can't even mention the Bell X1 on some comment sections.
aCtIvE mAlIcE
Taking off into a headwind=not flight? Well, I need to turn in my pilots license, since its standard for all flights to take off into a headwind if possible.
Exactly.
I zone out on long videos. Very little real content presented inefficiently.
I watch every minute of Greg’s work.
I always admired Santos Dumont Demoiselle airplane as an flying object of fragile beauty. I understand later in life Santos was greatly grieved and outraged when he witnessed airplanes being employed to bomb people. He really was a brave and sensitive soul when it came to flight.
More Schneider Cup racer content!
Really? I mean, I could do that easily enough.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yes please, such an amazing phase of aviation; where seaplanes where the fastest thing around, and something like the Piaggio P.7 seemed like a good idea.
Absolutely! So much innovation out of that era carried into WW2. I'd argue that going further and covering all the major air racing events of the inter-war years would be a fascinating topic.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Schneider cup content would be amazing!
Good video as always.
I don't blame Dumont for being pissy about having the record stripped from him.
He spent his life trying to accomplish what no man has before, he and every else believed he had done it. Then it gets stripped and he is told someone else did it better and a year before him.
I know I wouldn't have the humility to admit defeat.
I get it. He was an emotional sort from what I can tell, but he was also a genius, very brave, and made some huge contributions that are often overlooked.
Seems to happen to Brazilians all the time for some reason. See Felipe Massa for example.
@@wingracer1614 Didn't happen to Senna
@@thekinginyellow1744 Actually you could argue that it did in 1989
@@wingracer1614 Fittipaldi 👍
i'm glad you spanked the wright haters. soundly, in my opinion. thank you.
As usual a very fair and thorough examination of the subject. I especially like that you didn’t just diminish Dumont but did give him credit he deserved. Well done.
To paraphrase Brian Wilson (santos dumont) 'then the Beatles appeared and made us look as stylish as golf caddies'
I am 71 years old now, but from my earliest memories I remember going to Henry Ford's Greenfield Village and being absolutely enthralled by the Wright Brothers' home and bicycle shop that Ford moved from Dayton to Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan. We would go often because it was just a 15 minute drive and a neighbor worked there and we would often be given free tickets from him. (It was also much more affordable for a working class family back then.) As an adult, when I would see videos or read books about the Wright's work with propellers, airfoil shapes, engines and wing warping it was like - Yeah, I learned that when I was ten. Nowadays, when we go, I am still just enthralled. I am still amazed how these two brothers were able to develop so much and in such a professional manner that would give credit to any modern research and development team. BTW my wife usually has to pull me out of the bicycle shop. "Come on already, we have to go look at the Heinz 57 House across the street."
okay
"Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" is the pilot's edition of the "Junior Woodchucks' Guidebook", isn't it?
"Damaged by Customs. Seems like that still happens."
😂🤣😂🤣
Yes it does. Customs causes far more problems for law abiding businesses in the United States than Pablo Escobar ever did. I don't even want to get started going down that road right now.
It is refreshing to watch a video made by a guy who really knows the depth of the Wright's story. The propeller is often forgotten as a great achievement. You will recall that even Charley Taylor said "I don't think the boys got enough credit for it." Another forgotten aspect of their work was the realization that a person needed to "learn to fly." The Wright's work was not based on trial and error, but when something didn't work they still had to decide if it was the aircraft or the pilot's fault.
Excellent work, you treat the Dumont-Wright situation fairly and clearly researched this extensively. Eagerly waiting for the next documentary.
A great piece greg, you made your arguments well and repeatedly just like the wrights did with their aircraft. Forget the silly flat earthers.
Awesome video! Thanks for making and sharing.
The replica I’d really want to see is the Santos Dumont No. 9, his boulevard blimp. Such a cool thing, and yet incredibly pioneering.
I had no idea John Denver flew a replica of the Wright Flyer until today. Evidently he was far more interested in flight than I was aware of. It's always nice to learn interesting little historical tidbits in these videos.
Thanks Bagle, it makes me happy to hear that these little tidbits of side info are interesting to people.
Denver was the son of a USAF pilot who set several records in a B-58 Hustler bomber, so flight was evidently in his blood. It was his love of aviation, sadly apparently coupled with inattention to safety detail (see the wikipedia article on Denver) that killed him.
@@Ensign_Cthulhu
I knew he flew his own planes and I remember him dying in a plane crash, I just never knew he went so far as to fly a replica of the Wright Flyer.
I'll check that Wiki article out, thanks for the info.
I'm leaving on a Wright's plane
Don't know when I'll be back again
@@Ensign_CthulhuJohn Denver was flying an experimental and ran out of fuel that’s what I heard.
It's 5 AM, 7 April, 2021: so to entertain myself before everyone else wakes I see another of Greg's aviation videos. He never fails to entertain And educate... And I am a retired Naval Aviator, with some aviation firsts too. (Though not published and so not official) Aviation is such a young science, its still possible to meet and greet some really great important old timers. Also, new things are happening all the time. Enjoy.
Mr. Whitehead, congratulations on your non recorded victories. You, and other test pilots or aviators on the leading edge never get enough credit.
@ray whitehead, hope you’ve discovered the excellent RUclips channel of fellow naval aviator, Ward Carroll. He just got done interviewing pals at the Tailhook convention to share a few tales. Maybe you two could get together and publish a few unofficial aviation firsts, sure we’d love to hear them!
I absolutely love your takedown of the “Wright Brothers didn’t fly” nonsense.
The Wright catapult was developed in 1904. Sure, they flew in December, but it was still 1903.
Love when you get fired up over the Wright bros. I enjoyed the content immensely. I went back and re-watched your excellent "Wright bros. did invent the airplane" content. I know it's a lot of work putting this together..but your efforts are greatly appreciated. Thanks Greg!
Why are we talking about the Wrights and Dumont? The first powered flight was Daedelus and Icarus. I've seen the pictures.
True, and Maxim was quite early too, flew several hundred ft in 1894 with three persons aboard the aeroplane, I believe, although without much control, and certainly not intended. Wilbur Wright even credited Maxim with the first powered flight.
Very Good. Even more information on the Wrights and propellers. Thank you for your hard work researching this, and the no nonsense presentation, no drama, let the facts speak.
Well done, as usual, Greg. Always good to know something of the past and its significant actors when diving into new information and ideas. Looking forward to the next episode.
Well presented and argued. Glad to see you are handling this as a progression of videos that appear to have you on a path to join up with your sweet spot, WWII aircraft, and maybe beyond? TM 1-412 Aircraft Propellers 1944 is a nice reference also.
Pre-buying food for this one! Let’s do this Greg!
Life is good! Another awesome video to increase all of our’s knowledge. Yea, I managed a sneak peak, y’all will love it
Talk about blades...check out the heleocopter Ingenuity on Mars and tell me she isn't the cutest little skybug ever built. There is life on Mars, Mister Bowie.
There have always been trolls, they show be exposed and shown the error of their thinking.
Been reccomending this and your other vid on the Wrights to a Brazilian coworker, but he refuses to watch "more American propaganda." Shame how over developed pride can make otherwise intelligent people act like fools
As a North Carolinian, the idea that the Wrights were not the first to fly is absurd.. in the 7th grade I took North Carolina History and had an entire module on the origins of flight that covered a great deal of what you have covered in the two videos you have presented.. I have also been to Kitty Hawk In December, and standing on those sand dunes facing into the cold wind you can easily understand density altitude compared to a hot summer afternoon.. Thank you for the videos!
That info about the Fokker DR 1
Is new to me 😎
Just awesome, you will always learn something new watching
Some serious channels 😀
The Wright Brothers were under-appreciated. They contributed greatly to aerodynamics, control, props... The brothers depended on other highly touted inventors data for wing design which was faulty so they built a primitive wind tunnel and wrote the book on lift for their wings.
Well worth the wait. I look forward to the next one.
Greg I hope you never get tired of doing this
I like the idea that a catapult launch makes the succeeding flight not a real flight. In going to use it to tell the next Naval aviator I meet that he's not a real pilot.
Guess a glider can be considered an airplane , in that case the French were the first to invent the plane because they had a shitload of gliders and kites
@@vinibruh1397 well, could their gliders stay in the air with their own power and make turns? Guess not.
Outstanding Greg! I cannot wait for part 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks, I'm having fun making it.
A hello from France Greg, I discover your channel with pleasure. I'm going to give you a compliment probably not expected. Greg my English is very poor and usually I can't follow a spoken documentary in English... Except yours!!!!
What is clear is simply spoken, and your voice and diction are a real pleasure to follow.
Incidentally, I have been an love aviation and technology boy since I was 6 years old and was probably the first injured in a delta glider in France in 1971 at the age of 11, but the injuries were less serious than expected, because the delta glider was not so poorly designed and balanced. If I had known the approach of the Wrights, and not operated like a Frenchman, I would have known that a good airplane without control is nothing! And my approach was as naive as that of Clément Ader, who was nevertheless an outstanding inventor.
Congratulation Greg
Yvan Pesenti
In 95 I moved to Brasil, and it didnt' take long for me to start hearing about Dumont, and how the airplane was from Brasil.. constantly...
Again you've pointed me to a NACA report that might help me design and spec out one of my crazy ideas.
Thanks!
A fresh brew of java and a fresh video from Greg what a great start to my morning this side of the Pond - Thank you. As an ex Master Mariner I actually learnt somethings I did not know about propellers after +40yrs of them pushing me along. Some great historical information too.
Now you have got me intrigued Greg; I hope you are going to do a follow up video on your "throw away" remark about Boeing's tail wind upgrade.
As always keep safe, keep sane and keep posting such excellent & interesting content.
One thumb down and the video haven't even started yet. Trolls are all over
The net 😝
(angry brasilian noises)
great video.
I never knew the WB advanced prop design that much. Also amazing even small difference in density altitude could make a difference - I guess it makes sense the first planes were barely airworthy.
The WB were really amazing
* accomplished mechanics (bikes, printing presses, and planes)
* ran their own wind tunnel
* pretty much invented controls
* greatly advanced prop design
Not bad for two boys born couple years after the civil war.
The WB first plane had 12 hp with 16 hp "war emergency power" ; - )
In China they love to eat carp because the meat is considered delicious (a fish with gazillions of needle like bones none the less). It has never been a popular fish in the west because of all that nasty bones. What you achieve with your videos is similar to making class A, bone-free, carp filets. High quality content, tediously gutted of all those gazillions of nasty little bones. :-)
Hit that like button now.
Or you will shoot someone with your profile pic
28:47 that plane (UK-67002) flies almost every day to our local airport. Until you stand close to it you dont realize how big it is, and thats coming from someone who worked on 737's previously..
Even if the 1903 Flyer didn't actually fly, which it absolutely did, wouldn't the 1904 Flyer II still be the first proper airplane? I just don't get the arguments against them. They had three models of airplane flying before Santos-Dumont's flight in 1906.
And it was many years more before anyone else's designs could match or exceed the basic Wright Flyer design. It is said the Wright Flyer (improved from 1903 of course) was capable of crossing the Mediteranean before Bleriot ever crossed the English Channel. Wilbur had also been offered money to cross the Channel well before Bleriot ever attempted it, but Wilbur refused to do it calling it wreckless.
@@SoloRenegade Alas, the Wright brothers were great engineers and designers, but sadly lacking in marketing savy.
@@fafner1 Yes, they didn't see the potential and tried to patent all of aviation, which never would have happened. They very much lacked the marketing and business potential.
@@SoloRenegade The Wright Model A set a 77 mile distance record in 1908.
The flight across the English channel was 20-30 miles.
A privately owned Wright Model A did compete in the channel crossing contest.
They were successful but not the first. They were the first to fly the channel twice but that wasn't the contest.
The Wrights did not seem to understand the marketing value of participating in well advertised aerial events.
@@stevebett4947 That's exactly right, the Wrights didn't understand the importance of marketing. They could have beat Bleriot, had they accepted the $5000 offer to do so. But that's the legacy of the Wrights. They invented the airplane, and cracked its secrets better than anyone in the first decade, but they stopped innovating and focused on patents instead. And they overcharged for their plane, kept it secret for far too long, and didn't know how to capitalize on their status instead of their invention.
You called Dumont a hero and he was but I have noticed that people who actually are hero's don't think they did anything heroic; mostly they just think they were doing their job. People who think of themselves as heros generally aren't.
Dumont is so ingrained in Brazilian culture, i speculated that if one went to the brazil edition of wikipedia, dumont would get full credit for heavier than air flight. And..thats exactly what they did. I wonder if hiroshima was 100% unprovoked according to the japan edition of Wikipedia
America invented rock and roll. America invented blues. So...not a big leap here. I'm feeling extremely patriotic. And yes Africa was the origin of many American things. The propeller is a beautiful thing when done right.
Come on Greg, you know countering idiocy with rational thought is a losing game right?
and yet, I feel compelled to do it. Let's just be thankful I don't make videos about politics.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Not all the trolls are completely
irrational. You need to start where they start with the rational argument
of Henrique Lins de Barros (2000 and after) You can define first flight
in such a way that Santos-Dumont's 14-Bis comes in first.
You can also describe the Wright Flyer in such a way that it comes in first.
The anti-Wright fans disqualify the Wrights' because they could not fly
without wind assistance. You don't get disqualified for creating your
own wind with a take off roll.
I think that Capt. Ferber and Ernst Archdeacon knew what they were up to when they drafted the 1905 standards for certifying claimed records.
They found a half dozen ways to disqualify the Wrights early records.
Ferber did not arrive soon enough in 1905 to witness the Wright flights
but after interviewing the Wilbur and a dozen others, concluded that they
were flyers and not liars. Archdeacon was not convinced until he witnessed Wilbur's circular flights. At least he would believe his eyes.
The trolls have yet to explain why they can't accept the test flights of
the Hyde exact replica. They will ignore the video. They do, of course, believe that the failure on 17 Nov. 2003 (The date of the Centennial) as clear evidence that the 1903 Wright Flyer could not fly.
It may be evidence that the 1903 Flyer or its exact replica could not
fly on a rainy day when the wind speed was less than 5 mph.
Replica flies 100 ft. in 15 mph wind on 20 Nov 2003
ruclips.net/video/o1mscspl-VU/видео.html
@Mark Hornea, @Pease, @ECBrazil\o/, @h lynn keith, @majorbett
I believe Ader's Avion 3 probably did make a brief uncontrolled hop before 1900. Dumont's 14bis's "flight" wasn't much more than an extended version of that. However, I can't understand how anyone could claim that the 14 bis made the first heavier than air flight in history when over a year earlier the Wrights could stay aloft for over half an hour in sustained controlled flight. This is a documented historical fact that's not up for debate. My only argument, and it's a weak one at that, is that the early Wright flyers seemed to be so dependent on weather conditions (that is, density altitude) so not totally practical in that you couldn't fly whenever and wherever you wanted. Still, they were so far ahead of everyone else and of course, things improved with better engines.
The question of who flew first, and all the attending details, is strictly a technical one. It’s unfortunate that many commenters here can’t resist being tribalistic about it instead, and seeing it as a nation-versus-nation, culture-versus-culture thing. Some of them even re-shape this topic into diatribes about critical race theory and the Taliban. Grow up, all of you, and let evidence speak for itself. If you insist on ennobling some concept, then why not recognize that both the Wrights and Santos Dumont, as well as others, were great contributors to aviation as we know it today? There’s room enough to honor all of them without getting feathers bent, or having to stroke one’s national pride.
Superb, and a great debunking session. Sadly, most of the fantasists and conspiracy theorist have their ears full of chewing gum and their heads empty.
You got that right.
@EuroScoot: "great debunking..."
SB: The debunking works for us but not necessarily with the true believer in the alternate reality.
The believers in conspiracies simply dismiss any inconvenient truth.
I know, right? There are still people even today who believe that NASA never actually landed any men on the Moon or that Russia hatched a secret plot to install Trump as president lol 😆
I was about to be all "What, nothing about the literal century old french airplane still flying?" when I remembered that was more 1910/1911 than the *EARLY* stuff in the 19-single-digits.
The Wright brothers deserve sainthood. They only attended high school, were only bicycle mechanics, and they effectively applied the scientific method to change the world. They were secretive, but maybe they were justified considering the abuse they suffered. I love these kind of videos. Thank you sir.
Hey! Watch your mouth, my mother's a bicycle mechanic.
If the Wrights hadn't built their own airplane, do you really think nobody else in the rest of the world could have figured out controlled flight? Hundreds of people were working on it and the problem would have eventually been solved. The Wrights solved it in their own way. But nobody else used their layout or control system because it really wasn't very good.
@@PDZ1122If it was very good how come they had control when other people couldn’t do it.
@@PDZ1122fokker eindecker
My grandfather was a highschool graduate in 1918. I invite anyone to look up what was required to be a highschool graduate back then. Education in the US has seriously gone downhill in the last 100 years. Highschool was no joke back then.
I’m in college and listen to lectures about aviation all the time, but these videos are always much more entertaining and informative.
Very interesting vid as always. Congratulations for your work.
As always I learned a lot from the depth of knowledge disseminated by this video.
I have heard that both Santos Dumont and even Manley were credited by some as the inventors of the aeroplane and have been correctly (as it turns out) suspicious. Having learned so much from this video it is more clear than ever that the Wrights deserve the credit. More importantly the claim in the book 'Visions of a flying machine" that the Wrights discovered aerodynamics first and built their glider and planes based on that makes more sense than ever.
Thank you, I feel empowered to quietly and confidently disagree with bar-room experts who claim that Santos Dumont should have the laurels now.
I must be jealous to Bleriot, for his moustache.
Best "off on a tangent" video ever.
Amazingly researched and just superb. Love your work Greg.
New Zealander Pierce denied he was important in aviation, praising the research the Wrights put into aviation. He built his own engines, variable pitch props, and variable angle engine mounts. He had many witnesses and newspaper photoes. But thought himself a dabbler.
Terrific video. Love your work. It is curious how much resistance there is to giving the Wrights the credit they deserve. Their work is impressive, addressing problem after problem with hard work and talent. As you point out, they were not richly financed and just kept on going in the face of adversity. Thanks for the great work.
48:40 Very subtle, love the nuanced comedy. Great video, I learned a lot 👍😁
Oh no! You covered yourself of the Dual-Rotating/Counter-Rotating/Contra-Rotating issue only to leave yourself open to the "NACA isn't said as a word but individual letters" crowd. (First I ever heard of NACA was in reference to the hood scoops on my uncles new 1971 Mustang... I was told they were NACA Ducts. At the time I had no idea what a "NACA" was... point being people have been saying "NACA" as a word for at least 40 years).
I know, but I refuse to cave in on the "NACA" vs. "The N.A.C.A." argument.
Fantastic info on the DR-I...never knew that!
I was not subscribed to the channel at the time this video was posted. That was a mistake: it means I went three weeks understanding the world more poorly than necessary.
The mistake has been rectified.
Been waiting for this! Just back online, don't know for how long
48:50
I actually laughed salsa into my nose in the middle of lunch.
The catapult was not needed to get the Wright airplane airborne, but just to make take off easier and shorter, in some cases.
It was usually needed in Dayton. When you need the "assistance" of a 15 mph+ headwind and the wind is only 10 mph,
the extra 6 mph of forward thrust provided by the catapult is needed to get the Flyer airborne.
The catapult is a way to shorten the wooden rail runway.
I'm actually going to get up at midnight for this
I'll be there with you to answer any questions.
Just about 7am for me, luckily I have the day off tomorrow so I'll be able to watch it all the way through.