The Loneliness of Being Wright(s): not Reporting the First Flight.

JF Ptak Science Books LLC  Post 774  Blog Bookstore

Reading through the 1903/04 volumes of the NYC-based Popular Science Monthly I was struck, again*, by the lack of reporting (and the oddness of reporting when done) on the Wright Brothers’ first powered flight in December 1903.  The editors gave a page of coverage to the Samuel P. Langley failed aerodrome flight of November in the December issue. 

Langley at the time was the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, and one of America’s leading scientists who had a strong side interest in aerodynamics if not aviation.  Swimming in private funds, some money from the Smithsonian and $50k from the War Department, Langley set out trying to produce a flyer which—in its two attempts at flight from a raft in the Potomac in November—wound up broken and soggy in the river, following a “flight” straight from its launcher into the water.  The article actually took Langley to task on two fronts:  first, it made absolutely certain that readers understood that his powered plane didn’t fly; and second, that he might well prove to be a damaging embarrassment to the Smithsonian and American science by proceeding with his experiments. (The Langley aerodrome is pictured just below.)

The Wright’s first powered flight took place at Kill Devil Hills along the North Carolina coast in December, 1903, just weeks after the appearance of the Langley article.  They were somewhat reticent and droll in reporting their accomplishment; more so, people seemed simply not to believe them (see below for some further reading).  Still, though, there was no real mention of the Wright’s flight in Popular Science Monthly through April.  Oddly, the Smithsonian’s website reports that one of the first mentions of the flight was in the March (1904) issue of this journal, but they are mostly mistaken.  There is an article in that number by the Octave Chanute, a great figure in the history of early aviation, who writes in general about the progress of flight.  In the section on ‘flying machines” Chanute devotes one paragraph of his eight page article to the Wrights, and the main emphasis here is that other aviators should follow the Wrights’ example of careful preparation before actually hoping aboard a plane to fly:  its was the training that was emphasized. There isn’t actually any mention whatsoever regarding their powered flight, although engines and propellers are discussed somewhat. Of the 480 pages remaining in the journal after the December issue, this one paragraph was the only room that could be found for talking about the Wrights, and then not talking about their great achievement.

 

Of course there were many people who didn’t believe the Wright story—there was scant photographic evidence and only five eyewitnesses, and for years afterwards the Wright had a problem with officially authenticating their flight as the great First Flight.  But I’m a little puzzled by the Chanute coverage, as he was a pretty diplomatic and sharing person, and proved to be particularly supportive of the Wrights in general (visiting them at Kill Devil at certain points in 1901,1902 and 1903).  The brothers understood intellectual propriety and credited Chanute when credit was due (particularly in the cases of truss design and stacked wings).  So it is puzzling to me when it seems as though Chanute may have gone out of his way to not mention the flight.  This is especially true if you read between the lines of the next paragraph. Chanute writes: “Now that an initial success has been achieved with a flying machine, we can discern the use of such an apparatus, and also some of its limitations”.  To me, after having written seven pages on flying history, to refer to a singular “initial success” makes sense only if he was referring to the Wrights’ December flight. (I don’t think that he could’ve been referring to the Langley test, as the aerodrome simply fell into the Potomac, the structure of the plane overwhelmed by the thrust, the power of the engine, and movement in general—the plane just broke up and was flung into the water.)  To me, the invisibility of the unmentioned flight is glaringly visible.  But this was pretty much in the realm of standard reception for the Wrights for most of the rest of the decade—I am still struck though with the rush away from announcing the flight that almost everyone seemed to take in 1904. 

 

(It is interesting to note Chanute’s vision for the airplane in his closing paragraph, where he envisions military uses for aircraft, though these were limited to scouting and observation with not a whiff of tactical employment.  Also there is the possibility of mail delivery (“in some cases”) and the rescue of people in trouble in restricted-access areas.  On the other hand, the just-failed Langley had a much broader and deeper appreciation for what he saw as the impending future of the airplane, saying ‘the great universal highway overhead is soon to be opened”, which was directly contrary to Chanute, who couldn’t see aircraft being used for simple transportation.  Actually Langley’s vision was taken to task in that earlier article in the Popular Science Monthly, the editor writing that “Dr. Langley seems to claim too much” in regards to the future of flight, and that “he should be careful not to do anything that could lend itself to an interpretation that will bring injury to the scientific work of the government or country”.  It is certain that with at least this one (very popular, widely circulated) science magazine, one couldn’t be too stinking careful about what one did or thought or said regarding flight—and in the case of the Wrights, one could say hardly anything at all. 

 

* For three other of my posts on this issue of publicity and the Wrights, see:

--The Unbearable Wrightness of Being:  the Wright Brothers Introduce Europe to FlyingThe Casual Treatment of the Wright Brothers

--The Department of Great Understatement:  the Wright Brothers, 1903.

--The Casual Treatment of the Wright Brothers in the Scientific American

 

For the interesting conclusion (and summary) of Chanute’s Progress in Flying Machines of see here.