The Smithsonian Flying Circus
Samuel Langley
To say that science played no part in the development of aviation would be futile. Science incarnate was Samuel Pierpont Langley (1834-1906), son of the scientific method, who showed the world how ‘not’ to fly.
In spite of decades of theorising, huge government funding and the backing of the entire scientific community, particularly in the form of the Smithsonian Institution, he failed miserably and became a public laughing stock:
“In a shallow, remote cove on the Potomac River, they watched nervously while workmen made final adjustments to the sixth in a series of experimental steam-powered flying models that Langley called ‘Aerodromes.’ Finally, at 1:10 p.m., with the model’s propellers turning at maximum speed, Langley gave the signal to launch. When the launch lever was pulled, powerful springs catapulted the large model along its 20-foot launching rail. Takeoff!
Instantly, the left forward wing twisted to an acute angle, and the giant dragonfly barrel-rolled into the water with a mighty splash. After the crew pulled the wreckage from the river, Langley examined it. He declared that a truss wire had snapped when it snagged part of the launching apparatus, causing the wing to warp wildly out of alignment. Concealing his disappointment, he ordered immediate preparations to launch the remaining Aerodrome.” It never happened.
Click to access Samuel%20Langley%20-%20Aviation%20Pioneer.pdf
invention.psychology.msstate.edu says: “Needless to say, the Washington critics had a field day. The Brooklyn Eagle quoted Representative Hitchcock as saying, “You tell Langley for me … that the only thing he ever made fly was government money.” Representative Robinson characterized Langley as “a professor … wandering in his dreams of flight … who was given to building … castles in the air. The War Department, in its final report on the Langley project, concluded, “We are still far from the ultimate goal, and it would seem as if years of constant work and study by experts, together with the expenditure of thousands of dollars, would still be necessary before we can hope to produce an apparatus of practical utility on these lines.” Eight days after Langley’s spectacular failure, a sturdy, well-designed craft, costing about $1000, struggled into the air in Kitty Hawk, defining for all time the moment when humankind mastered the skies.”
What we see here is a lesson that never seems to be learned: that providing funding for, or throwing money at, theoretical science rarely pays dividends and that placing theory before practical, physical, experiments is not something to be recommended – the practice continues. Langley’s adopted aeronautical theories were later shown to be in error by the Wright brother’s practical experimentation. Again, as in other pages on this site, we see someone who was a total failure in the area for which he is most remembered, elevated to the pinnacle of scientific achievement. A clue to his success may be that:
en.wiki: “…he became the third Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution in 1887. Langley was the founder of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.” Well, that makes it all OK.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov: “Samuel Langley Born in the Boston suburb of Roxbury, Ma.,… was one of America’s most accomplished scientists. His work as an astronomy, physics, and aeronautics pioneer was highly regarded by the international science community. Ironically though, Langley’s formal education ended at the high school level, but he managed to continue his scientific education in Boston’s numerous libraries.”
earthobservatory.nasa.gov says: “Of all the early trail blazers one of the most controversial, and surely one of the most unlucky,…” ? Science depends on luck?
Langley built hundreds of model aircraft with steel frames, taking the heavier than air concept to its outer limits and eventually to disaster with his manned flights. It had never occurred to him that the pilot would need some mechanism for steering.
It’s difficult to classify Langley, but he was, at the end of the day a typical true believer, an adopted son of the scientific method, to the extent that he attempted to fly on theory that had no wings. His mistake was to believe that theory supersedes practical experimental reality – he put theoretical science before the nuts and bolts of engineering. This mistake and others were well taken by the scientific community who these days only theorise about things out of reach and beyond disproof. Things so minute that they cannot be disputed or so far away that they cannot be tested. The experimental tests of relativity using pulsars or the bending of light around galaxies are typical examples of modern science flying safely on the wings of theory. No crash into the Potomac in far distant galaxies and no press photographers in starships to record the ignominious failure.
Simon Newcomb (1835 – 1909) On the impossibility of a flying machine.
simon-newcomb.co.tv: “Newcomb a Canadian-American astronomer and mathematician remarked, “…the construction of an aerial vehicle … which could carry even a single man from place-to-place at pleasure requires the discovery of some new metal or some new force…. In the October 22, 1903 (The same year that the Wright’s were flying) issue of The Independent, Newcomb wrote that even if a man flew he could not stop. “Once he slackens his speed, down he begins to fall. Once he stops, he falls as a dead mass.”
“On the state of astronomy1888, Simon Newcomb declared: “We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy.”
gap-system.org: “Newcomb was specifically critical of the work of Samuel Pierpont Langley, who claimed that he could build a flying machine powered by a steam engine and whose initial efforts at flight were public failures.”
“Simon Newcomb was the most honoured American scientist of his time.” That is unless one includes Langley.
Lord Kelvin declared: “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible” and he was one of Britain’s most accomplished scientists. It’s a dangerous game becoming a countries most accomplished scientist.
It becomes clear that when it comes to predicting the future, or even a few months ahead, the academics have a poor track-record and declarations by them that certain things are impossible are not uncommon today. The revisionist tale, that scientists were unaware of the Wright’s successes does not really hold water. With so many ‘authorities’ denying the feasibility of heavier than air flight, no one would have bothered to investigate something that the ‘experts’ had declared impossible. This tendency of those who set themselves up as authorities to be universally believed, persists to this day, encouraged by other scientists, the media and educators. The Hollywood, ‘Scientist Saves the World’ scenario is about as far removed from what scientists actually do as it is possible to get.
New Scientist magazine declares: “The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count.”
There seems to be some confusion about whether the Wright’s flights were common knowledge among the scientific community. However: en.wiki says: “When Langley received word from his friend Octave Chanute of the Wright brothers’ success with their 1902 glider, he attempted to meet the Wrights, but they politely evaded his request.”
Langley and Chanute were buddies and Chanute was in regular contact with the Wright brothers. Langley would have been desperately interested in someone else’s flight project as he was about to build an aircraft of his own.
en.wiki: “Chanute was in contact with the Wright brothers from 1900, when Wilbur Wright wrote to him after reading Progress in Flying Machines. Chanute helped to publicize the Wright brothers’ work, (shome mishtake here surely?) and provided consistent encouragement, visiting their camp near Kitty Hawk in
1901, 1902 and 1903. The Wrights and Chanute exchanged hundreds of letters from 1900 to 1910.”
Scientific American, failed to report the Wright flight’s because they thought them to be a hoax. But Langley, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, was claiming to be about to do the same thing? Can this have been a case of an induced scientific scepticism? en.wiki on Scientific American says: “Throughout its early years, (of Scientific American) much emphasis was placed on reports of what was going on at the U.S. Patent Office. It also reported on a broad range of inventions including perpetual motion machines, an 1860 device for buoying vessels by Abraham Lincoln, and the universal joint which now finds place in nearly every automobile manufactured.”
museumofhoaxes.com: “The Wright Brothers’ discovery of flight: “When two American bicycle repairmen claimed to have built the world’s first aircraft in 1903, they were dismissed as cranks. Newspapers refused to send reporters or photographers to witness any of the flights. More than two years later, Scientific American magazine was still insisting that the story was a hoax. By that time, the Wright brothers had completed a half-hour flight covering 24 miles.”
The Lying Brothers
amasci.com: “After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about “The Lying Brothers.” Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local “crazies” who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc.”
I’ve heard it said that “The world was not economically ready for some of the past rejected technologies”, but this is a lame self justification for the scientific underground. History shows that every major new innovation creates jobs and wealth. Scientific suppression invariably supports the minority of economic vested interest to preserve the status quo and is still doing so today.
The Smithsonian dispute – when things look bad, cheat!
The Smithsonian had determined to show that it was their son Langley who had pioneered the trail to powered flight and set out on a quest to change history, the idea that a pair of bicycle mechanics could upstage a son of science was unthinkable. In an act of sheer desperation they got their own bicycle mechanic:
aviation-history.com: “…In an attempt to prove that Samuel P. Langley had invented the first machine capable of sustained flight, the Smithsonian Institution contracted with (Glenn Hammond) Curtiss to verify if Langleys 1903 Aerodrome could fly. The Smithsonian shipped Langley’s machine to Hammondsport, where Curtiss and his associates modified it and eventually flew it off of Lake Keuka on May 28 and June 2. The Smithsonian’s witness for these flights, Dr. Albert Zahm, later concluded that the Aerodrome has demonstrated that with its original structure and power, it is capable of flying with a pilot and several hundred pounds of useful load. It is the first aeroplane in the history of the world of which this can truthfully be said.
However, another witness to these flights was Orville Wright’s older brother Lorin. He compiled a long list of Curtiss’s modifications that, to the Wrights, verified that the plane could not have flown without those changes.
In light of the competing claims, Orville Wright and the Smithsonian argued for three decades over who had first invented a flyable plane. By 1943, the two parties had reached an agreement in favour of the Wrights, and the Wright Flyer of 1903 now hangs proudly in the Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC recognized as the worlds first powered heavier-than-air flying machine.”
Presentism, or seeing everything from hindsight is a slight-of-hand that has become an even more popular scientific distraction these days than it was in the early 1900’s. Academic science criticises past discoveries from the viewpoint of modern knowledge, as if ‘they should have known better because we do now’. The ‘we do now’ often originating from sources other than academic science, as in the case of the Wright brothers. Everything becomes so obvious when you are shown the answers and science needs no temptation to claim that it ‘knew about it all along’.
aviation-history.com: “It seems that the Smithsonian had asked Dr. Albert Zahm to procure the services of an aeronautical bicycle mechanic of their own choosing, (Glenn Hammond Curtiss) someone who had an axe of his own to grind – he had tendered contracts to the Wrights and been rejected.”
wright-brothers.org: “…Instead, Curtiss set about rebuilding Samuel Langley’s Great Aerodrome that had crashed into the Potomac in 1903 to prove that ‘it could have flown’ before the Wrights.”
wright-brothers.org: “Dr. Albert Zahm’s name crops up several times when researching aviation history. He is said to have concocted the myth about Gustave Whitehead’s flights being prior to that of the Wright’s.”
wrightstories.com: Restoring the Aerodrome “The Smithsonian gave Glen Curtiss the existing pieces of the Aerodrome from which to reconstruct the 1903 aircraft. Curtiss, however, did more than reconstruct the original airplane. He redesigned many features including wings. The wings had a different camber, leading edge, and aspect ratio (ratio of span to cord). Curtiss also redesigned the wing spars, the carburetor for the engine and added hydroplane floats.
The Smithsonian assigned Dr. Albert Zahm as its official representative at Hammondsport. Zahm would later falsely claim that the design changes were inconsequential. Zahm was not an unbiased observer. He had once sought employment with the Wrights as an expert witness but was spurned.
The rebuilt Aerodrome was test flown on May 28, 1914 on a lake at Hammondsport, New York. The machine allegedly flew 150 feet in a straight-line flight according to Zahm, who was also the official observer for the Smithsonian. Conveniently, there were no other observers or pictures of the flight because it occurred beyond the sight of shoreline spectators.
On hearing the news of the flight, Bell was elated and sent a telegram to Curtiss congratulating him for his vindication of Langley’s machine.
On June 2, the Aerodrome was tested for the second time to accommodate photographers and prove that the machine could fly. Two photographs were taken of the machine showing its pontoons just above the surface of the lake as it made several short hops of less than five seconds duration.
Based on this flimsy evidence, it was announced to the world that the original Langley Aerodrome had flown.
Comparison to the Wrights’ First Flight
In comparison to the Curtiss hops, It is interesting to note that Wilbur made the first flight at Kitty Hawk, but because it was only a hop lasting a few seconds in duration, it was not considered a valid flight. Three days later, Orville flew 120 feet in 12 seconds and that was counted as the first flight. The Wrights still were not satisfied, however, until the fourth flight of the day that flew 852 feet in 59 seconds.”
http://www.wrightstories.com/honor.html
en.wiki: “The Aerodrome was heavily modified and flown a few hundred feet by Glenn Curtiss in 1914, as part of his attempt to fight the Wright brothers’ patent, and as an effort by the Smithsonian to rescue Langley’s aeronautical reputation. Nevertheless, courts upheld the patent. The Curtiss flights emboldened the Smithsonian to display the Aerodrome in its museum as “the first man-carrying aeroplane in the history of the world capable of sustained free flight”.
Fred Howard, extensively documenting the controversy, wrote: “It was a lie pure and simple, but it bore the imprimatur of the venerable Smithsonian and over the years would find its way into magazines, history books, and encyclopedias, much to the annoyance of those familiar with the facts.” (Howard, 1987). The Smithsonian’s action triggered a decades-long feud with the surviving Wright brother, Orville.
http://www.airports-worldwide.com/articles/article0331.php
news.bbc.co.uk: The BBC web page “Flights of Fancy” article gives various claims for the first powered flight: “An article in the Popular Aviation magazine carried eyewitness accounts, of flights in 1898, 1901 and 1902. “Experts however, say the story lacks credibility. Some even credit it to the “hoax journalism” trend of the day while others believe the “myth” was perpetuated by Albert Zahm, (of the Smithsonian) an arch enemy of the Wright brothers, who was involved in a patent dispute with them.”
The Smithsonian, Curtiss and Zahm
nps.gov: “While Curtiss and Zahm announced they would return the aerodrome to its original form, the reconstructed machine was not the same that Langley flew. The wings, trussing system, and kingposts all varied from Langley’s original aerodrome. These were very important changes, for most knowledgeable authorities believed the wing structure failed, not a defect in the catapult system, during Langley’s unsuccessful 1903 test.”
en.wiki: “Testimony in Wrights vs. Curtiss, Zahm testified as an aeronautical expert in the 1910-1913 patent lawsuits by the Wright brothers who alleged patent infringement against inventor and manufacturer Glenn Curtiss. His testimony took over a month. He testified on behalf of the Curtiss after declining to testify for the Wrights. There is considerable controversy on this point, as other sources (see T. Crouch, THE BISHOP’S BOYS, p. 422) report that the Wrights refused to pay Zahm to appear as an expert witness while the Curtiss interests did so with alacrity. Zahm had been on friendly terms with both sides previously but became a long term adversary of the Wrights during and after the trial. Indeed, he worked closely with Glen Curtiss on the controversial 1914 flying tests of the (substantially rebuilt and modified) Langley Aerodrome in an attempt to prove that Langley’s machine (and not the Wrights’) was the first one “capable” of flying with a man aboard (see R. Hallion, TAKING FLIGHT, pp. 292-293).
He testified that earlier experimental gliders and glider designs and publications, before those of the Wrights, had included a variety of monoplane and biplane designs, with horizontal and vertical rudders, and steering concepts of ailerons and wing warping. There were complex technical issues, notably whether Curtiss’s airplanes used a vertical rudder and ailerons in ways that closely matched those aspects of the Wright patent which were legally protected. Numerous experts testified on both sides and sometimes contradicted one another on matters of fact. In the end judge John R. Hazel ruled in Feb. 1913 for the Wrights, and on appeal a higher court agreed with this decision in 1914.”
Later years: Zahm became the chief research engineer of Curtiss Aeroplane Company in 1914-1915 and then the director of the U.S. Navy’s Aerodynamical Laboratory, 1916-1929.”
Zahm became the chief of the Aeronautical Division at the Library of Congress from 1929 or 1930 until 1946, and held the Guggenheim Chair of Aeronautics there.
swaviator.com: (The) “technology, unknown to Langley in 1903, was derived from the Wrights’ wind-tunnel tests in November and December 1901, and was known only to them at the time. At the controls of an Aerodrome made airworthy using the Wrights’ own technology, Curtiss flew what was termed “several short hops” over Lake Keuka in 1914 and longer flights with additional modifications in 1915. The Wrights’ biographer, Fred Howard, wrote regarding a May 28, 1914 “hop” at which no unbiased observers were present, “The papers the next day were full of the news that ‘Langley’s Folly,’ mercilessly vilified for its failure in 1903, had all along been capable of flight.” Officials at the Smithsonian, which had been represented on-site by its official observer, Zahm, were elated. The Smithsonian annual report that year falsely stated that the original Langley machine flew without changes.”
invention.psychology.msstate.edu: “The smear campaign against the Wrights must be counted as one of the most effective in history. Today the common man recognizes the Wrights as the inventors of the airplane, but the prevailing attitude toward the Wrights is that they were bicycle mechanics who invented, perhaps by happenstance and chance, the first airplane. Few today realize the genius and hard work the Wrights brought to their chosen task. Even fewer appreciate the elegance of the sturdy Wright biplanes, how difficult it is to learn to fly as you invent an airplane, or have any idea how much longer society would have waited for airplanes if the Wrights hadn’t taught us all the way. As we near the 100th anniversary of the First Flight, efforts are underway to build a national park in Dayton to honor the Wrights. One might imagine that corporations who make billions off the airplane would be eager to support this effort. One might imagine that countries who stole from the Wrights might be looking to make amends. One would be wrong. Watch your back, Jack.”
“The broken 1903 Wright Flyer, however, is (now) on display at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum. The exhibit is labeled with these words”:
THE ORIGINAL WRIGHT BROTHERS AEROPLANE. THE WORLD’S FIRST POWER-DRIVEN, HEAVIER-THAN-AIR MACHINE IN WHICH MAN MADE FREE, CONTROLLED, AND SUSTAINED FLIGHT. INVENTED AND BU ILT BY WILBUR AND ORVILLE WRIGHT FLOWN BY THEM AT KITTY HAWK, NORTH CAROLINA DECEMBER 17, 1903. BY ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH THE WRIGHT BROTHERS DISCOVERED THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN FLIGHT. AS INVENTORS, BUILDERS, AND FLYERS THEY FURTHER DEVELOPED THE AEROPLANE, TAUGHT MAN TO FLY, AND OPENED THE ERA OF AVIATION
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/the_first_flight.aspx?page=3
There are now a large number of revisionists who paint Langley and Zahm et al as heroes, the usual refusal to admit that amateurs are every bit as capable as are scientists, if not more-so. The Wright’s experimentation was as thorough and scientific as it was successful and it allowed us all to fly – the bottom line is that it worked.
The humiliation of the renowned Samuel Pierpont Langley would not have been accepted with good humour by physicists as one would expect. Langley, an illustrious representative of science by his association with the prestigious Smithsonian Institution brought disrepute upon science. Hence, the eagerness to distance physics from all such interlopers, such as the bicycle mechanics who made scientists look like an amateurs…
alixus 