The mechanic who built the engine for the Wright Flyer was Charles E. Taylor. He worked with the Wrights until 1920. The FAA's Charles Taylor Master Mechanic Award is named in his honor. His picture appears on FAA mechanic certificates. The Wright Brothers appear on pilot certificates.

@BornAgainCynic0086

3 жыл бұрын

Was it 2 stroke or 4 stroke?

@johnopalko5223

3 жыл бұрын

@@BornAgainCynic0086 It was a 4-stroke 4-cylinder engine. It had a 4-inch bore and 4-inch stroke and displaced about 201 cubic inches.

@craigme2583

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the info!

@almafuertegmailcom

3 жыл бұрын

@@BornAgainCynic0086 Two smokes weren't really a thing back then, not yet anyway. It had been invented, but not perfected until a few years afterwards. Also, two strokes aren't ideal for flying machines. They are used in some ultralights and in RC because they can be made lighter than a four stroke, but they are less efficient, so for anything larger, where the main weight would be fuel, you want the most power for the least fuel, so you'd use the more efficient 4 strokes. Also, they're more reliable.

@BornAgainCynic0086

3 жыл бұрын

@@almafuertegmailcom Got it, ta.

Just imagine the pilot say: ladies and gentlemens, we're about go land at LAX, I hope you've enjoyed the ride and now please shift your legs towards right side of the aircraft, we need every legs onboard to ensure a safe and swift landing. Thank you.

@JohnDoe-re4qy

3 жыл бұрын

That is a steampunk movie I'd watch! A biplane using coal with 3 double rows of passengers with massive backpacks to evacuate at like 3k feet.

@sMASHsound

3 жыл бұрын

UR OTHER RIGHT!!!

@nirui.o

3 жыл бұрын

@DaChicken76 That'll be great, but we only got leg meters in the cockpit so you must improvise.

@snailsaredumb9412

3 жыл бұрын

@no privacy i love you...

@sMASHsound

3 жыл бұрын

@DaChicken76 lol, evasive maneuvers

> The "Wright Flyer" was a textbook example of how engineering happens This is the takeaway from this video. People make it sound like inventions happen when somebody wakes up in the morning, has a genius idea, and builds the thing. The long effort before the build is brushed off.

@kurtilein3

3 жыл бұрын

Remember the flat earther who built a rocket to fly up in to prove that earth is flat, with the rocket going out of control and him totally shredding the parachute as he tried to exit using the parachute and then falling to his death? You can also try to do it like that, its not particularly smart or safe, but its a thing.

@Joesolo13

3 жыл бұрын

@Ric Boni yes. Multiple times. Wright flyer 2 and 3 were much more capable aircraft that all flew before a certain Brazilian improved on the Wright's work.

@Joesolo13

3 жыл бұрын

@Ric Boni Also your rant about the bis being more powerful means nothing. A model T is more powerful than Benz's first motor car, his was still first

@error.418

3 жыл бұрын

@Ric Boni Oh boy, the Santos Dumont diehards have shown up... And in crazy all-caps typing, too.

@Joesolo13

3 жыл бұрын

@@error.418 I've said for a while the quickest way to find a Brazilian is to mention the wright brothers.

Kind of amazing that Leonardo Da Vinci was still designing flying machines over 250 years after his death, guy was dedicated

@aeronothis5420

3 жыл бұрын

awfully bold of you to assume he is dead XD

@grevberg

3 жыл бұрын

Even more amazing saying all that without inhaling!

What the Wright Brothers Should Actually Be Famous For: having the foresight to bring witnesses and a photographer so there was no question about their first flight.

@vp21ct

3 жыл бұрын

They could have the foresight to do so because of their rigorous testing and design process. They flew because the math said they would fly. I'm reminded of Chris Hadfield's comment for his Master Class "No astronaut goes into space with his fingers crossed. That's not how we handle risk."

@scowell

3 жыл бұрын

The man that took that picture had never taken a picture before... he was one of the lifeboat station folks. The Brothers had been into photography as well.

@scowell

3 жыл бұрын

@Ric Boni Show us on this doll where the plane hurt you.

@thatgirlreacts5465

3 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@chrisc1140

3 жыл бұрын

​@Ric Boni I'm just gonna assume you're a shitty troll with your...questionable grammar and formatting, but in case anyone else is wondering, the 1903 Flyer did *not* use a catapult - that made launches easier on later, larger craft - and multiple replica Flyers have flown, including one in 2003 made for the Centennial. There was a documentary about the making of it I watched a bunch of times as a kid. It sadly wasn't able to fly on the exact date due to rain soaking the canvas making it too heavy, but it did fly on a second attempt made later in the year.

crazy what war does... in a twelve year span we went from “how do we get this off the ground?” to “how many bombs will it drop?”

@GunUDwnAt2nd

3 жыл бұрын

Yep. My thoughts exactly.

@edwinhuang9244

3 жыл бұрын

Welcome to war

@andyhaochizhang

2 жыл бұрын

War can definitely speed up certain innovations, but also the exponential progress of technology and such... the war started at a good point on the curve where there had been enough progress for things to start really speeding up.

"The Kitty Hawk engine was only twice as powerful as two lawnmowers" *Me:* _(goes to strap two lawnmowers together)_

@jjbarajas5341

3 жыл бұрын

Uh, wouldn't you need for lawnmowers?

@itsdonaldo

3 жыл бұрын

@@jjbarajas5341 only need two to fly down

@pheart2381

3 жыл бұрын

Are they same power as Edwardian lawn mowers?

@julianshepherd2038

3 жыл бұрын

African or European lawnmower?

@johnrickard8512

3 жыл бұрын

Pretty certain that these days ultralight aircraft exist powered by lawn mower and go kart engines

"Stability is kind of important if you want to be able to land." I dunno about that... I think unstable aircraft still manage to land. Often faster than stable ones!

@kindredtoast3439

3 жыл бұрын

Right on! It's called a crash LANDING for a reason, dammit.

@pypeapple

3 жыл бұрын

Lithobraking is still a viable means of slowing down!

@atk05003

3 жыл бұрын

I think he should amend the statement to "Stability is kind of important if you want to WALK AWAY after landing"

@operator0

3 жыл бұрын

Not to be pedantic, but many modern fighter designs are inherently unstable and wont be controllable except for the computer which makes small corrections hundreds of times a second. The f-16 and F-117 stealth fighter are two early examples of this design philosophy.

@atk05003

3 жыл бұрын

@@operator0 That is true, but in this context, I would count the computer as part of the aircraft design. That makes those planes "stable" because the computer controls the built-in instability.

Orville Wright actually survived to 1948. He living from the age of the horse-and-buggy to the dawn of the jet engine and supersonic flight

@hyzercreek

Жыл бұрын

He lived to see Chuck Yaeger break the sound barrier

I've been to the Huffman Flying Field, which is in the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base area, where the Wright Brothers learned how to turn their aircraft. And their incentive to turn was a large, thorny honey locust tree in the middle of the field.

@jordaneggerman4734

3 жыл бұрын

Ugh. Those trees should all be cut down and burned, come what may.

@semaj_5022

3 жыл бұрын

I'd have succeeded at steering there too. Ouch.

@UnlimitedFlyers

3 жыл бұрын

"For every obstacle, an opportunity." goes the saying...

@hyzercreek

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, they need to replace that tree with a soft maple

In my mind, the wind tunnel testing was their key breakthrough. The assumption that the data from Lilienthal were correct were almost universally accepted; the Wrights level of detailed testing was THE key thing that made their fliers successful.

@w8stral

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. Before the Wrights, there was no wind tunnel worth mentioning. Yes, there was a horizontal wind tunnel, but no one obtained repeateable data from it as their equations were wrong(wright Bros still did not have the altitude density portion figured out). W. Bros effectively invented wind tunnel scales, control in all 3 axis, and built a decent engine as well.

We all know that it was Tom and Jerry that made the first *"powered"* flight

@Zamtrios245

3 жыл бұрын

Birds

@leogama3422

3 жыл бұрын

*Bugs

@Ben-pz7wo

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

@wackywankavator

3 жыл бұрын

Flintstones. They were after all the modern stone age family

@pheart2381

3 жыл бұрын

The one constructed out of a girdle?

My great great grandad once went to an airshow where nothing got off the ground. I don't think there are many fields of human invention that more aptly demonstrate to the layman the progress that we have made in science and technology in such a short time. Going from not being able to fly, to having supersonic craft, and enormous transport/passenger crafts in barely over 100 years.

@GustavSvard

3 жыл бұрын

@The Jerma985 and if there had been budget allocated for it there could have been a drone flying "on" Mars for the 100th anniversary of the Wright brother's flight. But apparently getting science done was seen as more important than what would just be a symbolic tech demonstrator.

@howardbaxter2514

3 жыл бұрын

There is no greater demonstration on how far human ingenuity has gone than that of transportation. In the span of 100 years, we went from trains and horse carriages to landing humans on the moon. It's truly remarkable when you think about it.

@matheusd.rodrigues429

3 жыл бұрын

@@howardbaxter2514 Communication is also a pretty good indicator, we went from sending letters that took weeks to arrive in another city to being able to video call someone the other side of the planet instanteneously.

@WinVisten

3 жыл бұрын

Don't forget the moon landing, Voyager, the Mars rovers, and the Space Shuttle. C:

@WinVisten

3 жыл бұрын

@@GustavSvard Actually, a plane on Mars would be VERY difficult to pull off. Why? Because even though Mars has only 38% the gravity that Earth does, getting off the ground would be ASTRONOMICALLY (Pun intended) harder. The reason is because Mars has a VERY thin atmosphere- about 1% as thick as Earth's, and to actually get a plane to take off on Mars with what would be "sea level" pressure (assuming Mars still had its oceans), you'd need to BREAK THE SOUND BARRIER *ON THE RUNWAY* before you took off in order to gain the lift needed to actually PERFORM the takeoff.

"Rigorous cycles of design" coz they had a cycle shop !

@Shenron557

3 жыл бұрын

😭

@MidnighterClub

3 жыл бұрын

>_

@badcornflakes6374

3 жыл бұрын

Ugh

@danielawesome36

3 жыл бұрын

Nice catch.

0:53 You not going to name the makers and pilot of that balloon? Montgolfier brothers, so everyone knows. Joseph-Michel Montgolfier and Jacques-Étienne Montgolfier, with Jacques being the first pilot.

@SailorBarsoom

3 жыл бұрын

Something about brothers and flying, I guess.

@RED40HOURS

2 жыл бұрын

its always brothers..

Excellent episode! As a scientist, I see too much of the icon-veneration in STEM translate into a kind of assumptive myth that these individuals developed their groundbreaking discoveries in a vacuum, which is incredibly inaccurate. It also leads to a sort of "cowboy" expectation/mentality in students that runs counter to how actual science is done--especially in the modern age.

@TheSkyline77

3 жыл бұрын

Its more than an issue with stem on its own, that’s the way we perceive achievement in America (and maybe capitalist and individualist communities more generally). It’s a thing one person does, not all those helping them too

@PMA65537

3 жыл бұрын

If they'd developed a plane in a vacuum they wouldn't be famous.

@sdfkjgh

3 жыл бұрын

@Ric Boni: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santos-Dumont_14-bis#14-bis_vs._Wright_Flyer

@LlamasOnJUPITER

3 жыл бұрын

@@PMA65537 this is an underrated comment omg 😂

@UnlimitedFlyers

3 жыл бұрын

Cowboy approach reminds me of the guy that tragically - yet not entirely unexpected - died this year after shooting himself up on a rocket in an attempt to see the flat earth he talked so much about.

They were also known for VERY aggressively defending their patent that basically said that no one else could ever make another airplane without their consent ever again. Watch the business blaze on them, it's gold. It did lead to better patent laws though.

@diamondsmasher

3 жыл бұрын

SciShow: What the Wright brothers should have been known for. Me: ... being dicks?

@LoPhatKao

3 жыл бұрын

was looking for any other Blazers ;D

Charlie Taylor needs more of a mention that a "local mechanic." Charlie Taylor worked for the Wrights. Charlie Taylor designed and built the first engine. His contribution was important beyond measure.

@Crosshair84

Жыл бұрын

Indeed. The Wrights themselves gave Charlie Taylor a lot of credit for their success, but history since then has focused on the brothers.

@johnwelsh2769

5 ай бұрын

@@Crosshair84 That is not true. All Wright books have a big emphasis on Charlie. Amateur KZread videos do not.

0:33 I don't mean to sound mean but I don't think that Leonardo da Vinci was alive in 1789.

@QuantumPandita

3 жыл бұрын

Considering he died in 1519 it does seem unlikely

@PhenomUprising

3 жыл бұрын

Unless he built a time machine, went to the future, and went back to the past before his death.

@world_reborn1990

3 жыл бұрын

When did he say that?

@olbradley

3 жыл бұрын

@Lord Waluigi *vsauce theme*

@zoatebix

3 жыл бұрын

+

at 39 seconds in, a DaVinci diagram the same year of the taking of the Bastille is shown. I call shenanigans.

I’m teaching Bernoulli’s principle this week. This will be a super helpful introduction!

@user-jt6ej7vh2p

3 жыл бұрын

R u a teacher ?

@Myllypelle

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-jt6ej7vh2p don't worry she ain't gone teach you

@user-jt6ej7vh2p

3 жыл бұрын

@@Myllypelle i did't ask it you.

@enderoftime2530

3 жыл бұрын

Please do it right!! So many textbooks provide an incorrect explanation.

@paddor

3 жыл бұрын

I'm just curious, how is this useful?

Honestly this story makes me more impressed at their achievement. Before, their story was told like a fable, like Newton's apple or E=mc^2. But once you know the details of how they actually did it and what they had to figure out, it becomes a lot more real, and a hell of a lot more impressive.

Can already feel brazilian people going after SciShow for not metioning Santos Dummont.

@that_tabby

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah wtf

@pedroscoponi4905

3 жыл бұрын

Can you blame us? 14-Bis getting snobbed again, in front of my very eyes! T-T

@llearch

3 жыл бұрын

Or Richard Pearse from New Zealand.

@thi4900

3 жыл бұрын

@@pedroscoponi4905 o pai e br tbm mn, e foda gringo so esculacha nois

@datitingammez

3 жыл бұрын

thank you for your sympathy

To be fair you always land. It's just one is called a crash landing.

@vidblogger12

3 жыл бұрын

I prefer the term “lithobraking.”

Spectator: Turn right! Wilbur Wright turns to the left. Spectator: No, the other right! Orville Wright: Who me?

@PiLLbOt100

3 жыл бұрын

Third base?

@coolbionicle

3 жыл бұрын

@@PiLLbOt100 No! I wanna know what's the guy's name on first base!

Corrections: 1) The Montgolfier brothers were not the pilot, that was deRozier. 2) Please change your lift diagram, it looks a lot like the Newtonian ski effect, which Newton himself noted was wrong. The air flow is over top and bottom and down at the rear due to rotational and viscous effects, giving a resultant aerodynamic reaction up and BACK!

@cactuslovesballoons8581

3 жыл бұрын

If you're one of the Wright brothers, your name would be Always.

@mooncowtube

3 жыл бұрын

Where does he mention the Montgolfier brothers?

@campbellpaul

3 жыл бұрын

1789 is the year Leonardo's flying machine diagram came into being... 260 years after he died? How did he steal a flying machine designed in the future?

Excellent video. As a retired aeronautical engineer and now amateur aviation historian, as well as sailplane pilot, I can also say that the Wrights achieved another breakthrough that only pilots seem to understand: overcoming adverse yaw. You see, they knew that to turn a plane left, for example, that their left wing had to reduce lift, and their right wing had to produce lift, hence rolling the plane. The problem they found in their 1902 glider was that, since the left wing produced less lift, it also produced less drag. And since the right wing produced more lift, it produced more drag. So, even though the plane rolled to the left, it would yaw to the right, and this combination would cause their glider to crash, over and over again. They called it "oil drilling." In the middle of one sleepless night at Kitty Hawk, one of them realized that they had to add rudder to the turn in the direction of the turn to overcome this adverse yaw. The next day they modified the rudder to do this, and they mastered the turn immediately. Full three axis control is why we can fly today, thanks to the Wrights.

@Crosshair84

Жыл бұрын

I've heard that they called it "Welldigging". Since it sounded like a well pipe being driven into the ground when they crashed.

"They certainly didn't do it alone" Kind of goes without saying. Everyone that has moved society forward has gained from previous knowledge. This includes the people that the Wright brothers have learned from. They deserve all the credit for their achievements just as much as anybody else who made such a great achievement.

@riggcatt

3 жыл бұрын

Shoulders of giants... I thought the same thing. It seems that the video is trying to discount their achievement

@AlejandroRodriguez-se4ue

3 жыл бұрын

The video comes off as trying to say they didn't really invent airplane flying... only to list everything they had to do in order to be able to fly correctly. Including inventing several pieces of technology and correcting a constant. We are talking about two guys in a bike shop! We may have all the necessary bits to make a clean nuclear reactor that doesn't have any risks... if anyone puts it al together, they will be credited as the inventor. Other than that, nice video.

@pauljs75

3 жыл бұрын

I think they were also in occasional correspondence with both Langley and at least one other person. (Lilienthal?) They didn't spill all the beans on how their aircraft setup was intended to work, but it was still good to bounce some ideas off their contemporaries that had the same goal in mind. (And it allowed them to judge where they were in the race to be first at controlled powered flight.) I think they got good feedback on how to smooth the air going into the wind-tunnel box and tips on some aspects in engine design in exchange for some of the wind tunnel table results with their superior instrumentation setup.

Dayton honors the brothers for choosing to live in the integrated community now called "the Wight-Dunbar community" named for them and their close friend and neighbor Paul Lawrence Dunbar the famous African American poet. Somehow in this current political climate that is a good thing to remember.

@TheCrotchetyoldwoman

3 жыл бұрын

@J J I have lived in Ohio and until 40-50 years ago there were many redlined and restricted neighborhoods and there was a large a large KKK in the 1920's. There is a famous picture of one of the later lynching in next door Indiana. So yes I think it's important that we remember that there were always African Americans speaking out and organizing against the oppression and always those of European heritage that said no to segregation. And, yes, I have visited the Levy Coffin house in Fountain City. Indiana.

@Great_Olaf5

3 жыл бұрын

I did not know that, and I have relatives who lived in Dayton until about three years ago. That's inspiring.

@briansammond7801

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much for your comment. I had never heard of Paul Lawrence Dunbar, and I looked up his work, which led me to William Grant Still and his Symphony No.1 in A flat major "Afro-American", for which Dunbar's poetry served as partial inspiration.

@TheCrotchetyoldwoman

2 жыл бұрын

@@briansammond7801 I have a book of Dunbar's writing that I haven't read. I am recovering from cataract surgery. Maybe I pick it up again. There has always been a lot of racist violence in and around Dayton. It was rampant in the early years of the 20th century. I just find it soothing that there were those who didn't let it overcome the power of friendship. I suspect it was hard for both Dunbar and the brothers.

I'd love to see at least a shout-out to the Brazilian Alberto Santos Dumont, contemporary of the Wright Brothers. Brazilians claim his was the first airplane, and, although, the Wright Brothers ticked all of the five boxes before Dumont, he is still at least an honorable mention.

@wfpelletier4348

2 жыл бұрын

There should be no doubt that Alberto Santos Dumont was one of the greatest of the early aviators, even if his heavier-than-air flight was after the Wright Brothers. The lighter-than-air airships that Santos Dumont built and flew around Paris were the first truly practical, controllable aircraft ever built and flown.

@GRUBB5951

2 жыл бұрын

Actually this guy is an IDIOT. Of course it's fun to pretend like you're the smartest guy in the room but he doesn't have the first concept of Engineering or it's principles. The Wright Brothers were among the greatest Inventors of all history. Nobody else was even remotely close to the ideas and concepts they had completely worked out by the Fall of 1903. Other inventors were able to get the plane to make a small, jumping hop and the fatality rate was quite high. The Wright Brothers all by themselves had worked out the principles of Flight which are still identical to that used by a modern Airbus A380. No Difference. They were self-taught (by many books) and had learned most of the Engineering Sciences necessary such as Trigonometry, etc. Their learning and understanding of the Principles of Flight had virtually nothing to do with watching birds or anything like that. They were the most perfect Engineers science has seen. It has been said that if not for the Wright Brothers Invention of the Airplane, mankind would have limped along with their primitive attempts for many more years and WW1 at best would have seen some very primitive type of flying machine but certainly not a workable airplane and the rapid progress that followed. By the 1930's maybe there would have been a working airplane but not much progress, especially the type needed to build say a B-17. Since WW2 was mostly an Air War there would have been nothing for that to develop as it did and we would all be speaking German now. Try reading a book you moronic Scishow.

@bpnk5237

2 жыл бұрын

His monoplane is still a base for modern small planes

@recessivegenius6630

Жыл бұрын

There's tons of shout-outs to Dumont

@jacobopstad5483

Жыл бұрын

@@recessivegenius6630 I meant in this video

Video: What the Wright Brothers Should Actually Be Famous For Me: Is it steering? Video: Steering

@jordaneggerman4734

3 жыл бұрын

I went the other way with it. "First powered, heavier-than-air, controlled, piloted flight". Requires a lot of modifiers, if you're trying to just talk about flying planes... lol

@atk05003

3 жыл бұрын

@@jordaneggerman4734 You need the modifiers, because people often choose definitions for "airplane" or "aircraft" that favor their local heroes. For example, Brazilians argue that the Wright Flyer wasn't a proper plane, because the wheels used for take-off were on a cart that was not attached to the flyer. (See Santos-Dumont 14-bis.)

"Leg shifting isn't exactly scalable to larger aircraft" -so that explains why the rows of seats are 12 inches apart.

The timing of this video is fantastic. I'm a sophomore aerospace engineer and for my group project right now we decided we wanted to re create the Wright flyer with modern technology (carbon fiber, electric motor etc) and we've been doing a bunch of calculations for it over the past few weeks on its airfoil, drag and lift coefficients, range and endurance etc. With the changes we've made, we've been able to improve it's calculated performance quite a bit. I just thought it was a funny coincidence that this video was uploaded while I've been doing all this research on it.

@aeromodeller1

3 жыл бұрын

The 1903 flyer was not a practical flyer. Make a 1905 machine.

@aaronsimpson8907

3 жыл бұрын

@@aeromodeller1 I'm aware. If we were actually planning on building it we would probably pick a later design but this project is more about the math than anything.

@aaronsimpson8907

3 жыл бұрын

@@Nate-.- oops. Idk why I thought the name was spelt different lol

@gghhhfghgh

Жыл бұрын

Infelizmente essa replica nunca voará! Nenhuma réplica dos Wright de 1903 nunca voará porque eles nunca voaram em 1903! O primeiro vôo do mais pesado foi em Paris em 1906, Santos Dumont teve a honra!

“No one pair of brothers can claim all the credit for getting us airborne.” -not all credit, no, but as far as heavier-than-air flight, with their independent, iconoclastic, and scientific research and engineering, they can claim MOST of that credit. And don’t leave out the precise twist they introduced to the propeller blades: more near the hub, less at the tips. This was all stuff they figured out- not building on the work of others, but correcting the errors of their predecessors and forging into uncharted territory on their own.

@StevenBanks123

3 жыл бұрын

@Ric Boni : )

@justinsutton5005

3 жыл бұрын

@Ric Boni The first flight was done by the wrights. The wright flier was not a glider. Saying that he did it better does not mean anything when the Wrights were the first. In 1906 Dumonts flights were similar to the flights done by the Wrights in 1906. By 1906 the Wrights were able to have sustained flight for half a hour. Having a catapult or not is irrelevent. If using a catapult makes the vehicle not a plane than planes on Aircraft carriers are not planes.

@KeltkeGH

2 жыл бұрын

​@@justinsutton5005 That wasn't flying, it was falling with style

Big gaps here in context , Sir George Caley known as the Father of Aviation at NASA worked out the design of the wing to provide lift and the principles of lift weight ,drag ,and propulsion. These principles and his papers were used by the Wright brothers to design an Aircraft with an engine which they duly gave credit to him.. Caleys Glider 130 years before flew when there were no suitable engines in the 1700s. He invented several other things from his home in Yorkshire England. Full credit goes to the Wright Brothers for combining his principles with the Aircraft they flew.

Your video is very timely for me; just two weeks ago I was at the Wright Brothers Memorial in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. Going there is like a yearly pilgrimage for me; my lifelong passion for aviation began there when I first visited as a small child. The Wright Brothers' accomplishment (and the collected accomplishments of the many who preceded them) really changed the course of human history, and I still can't help but marvel at it whenever I stop to think about it. Anyway. I freaking love aviation. So thanks once again for an awesome video. 🙂✈👍

There was a new Stuff You Should Know podcast episode just this week on the topic of wind tunnels, which detailed how it played a role the Wright Borthers' success.

Dayton Strong! If you haven't tried Warped Wing Brewery's 10 Ton Oatmeal Stout, you haven't fully lived yet.

@MrSplicer3

3 жыл бұрын

I'll have to ask my Bat Bat about that one. He lives in New Carlisle north of Dayton. I love the city

@andie_pants

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrSplicer3 Nice! The Speedway gas station in New Carlisle used to be the only place I could get those Mexican sweet rolls called conchas, so I'd always buy a couple when passing through. Grew up in Troy, not too far from there.

Good reading: "The Wright Brothers" by David McCullough.

@roxyspamcake

3 жыл бұрын

We should just turn the comment section into a reading recommendation list

@shoeshiRoll

3 жыл бұрын

What's it about?

@fuferito

3 жыл бұрын

@@shoeshiRoll, Popcorn. It's about popcorn.

@rhiggst3327

3 жыл бұрын

Great read

@ryanr6288

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks to this comment, I got the book and finished it today! Thanks for the good suggestion

“No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris.” - Orville Wright

@paddor

3 жыл бұрын

More like Orville Wrong

@thanapornnitsmer1567

3 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@nealdmiller

3 жыл бұрын

Everything we know about the future is likely wrong.

@paddor

3 жыл бұрын

@@nealdmiller Pray tell, what do we “know” about the future?

@Joesolo13

3 жыл бұрын

@@paddor I believe that's his entire point

Would say that this missed the biggest point that the Wright's applied the scientific method to the problem of flight. Before them many had tried and to some degree succeed to get into the air with gliders and the like but the issues of generating lift, thrust and control using aerofoils and 3 axis control was what set them apart. Being able to calculate how much wing area and size of propeller and so forth from reliable data generated using their own home built wind tunnel was what set them apart from many other experimenters of the time.

@topspeed250k5

2 жыл бұрын

Hmmm. If you read "Bird Flight as the Basis for Aviation' by Otto Lilienthal, you will see that science was applied to aircraft well before the Wrights. The early designers weren't all using guesswork.

@Crosshair84

Жыл бұрын

@@topspeed250k5 The people before the Wrights practiced scientific observation, but generally did not practice scientific engineering. Lilienthal did some, but not enough to discover that his testing methods were flawed.

The Brazilian tsunami is coming soon, Hank. I can feel it.

@leonsantana3646

3 жыл бұрын

Santos Dumont was already building blimps at that time, but his first plane only came out 2 years after the _Flyer_, not to take credit from him, dude invented and built 5 yrs later the first plane to take off by itself without rails or a catapult, but did so after the Wrights

@arnbrandy

3 жыл бұрын

@@leonsantana3646 that is true but there is another point here. The video listed five criteria for defining an airplane. If among them we also had taking off by itself, then the Wright brothers first tries wouldn't meet them. Same with flying in public, or for some specific length of time. Or if one removed one of the criteria, Lilienthal would be "the inventor."

@leonsantana3646

3 жыл бұрын

@@arnbrandy I see, the choice of criteria is very arbitrary then, your point is very strong

@olavoxavier4353

3 жыл бұрын

@@arnbrandy great comment. Where you put the finnish line says who is the winner

@fep_ptcp883

3 жыл бұрын

@@leonsantana3646 they also "tailored the definition" of what is a planet to exclude Pluto in 2006. In that case they were right, but as some maneuver was required to include everyone else except Pluto, they came up with "a planet must have cleaned its orbit"... In this case, however, it is done only to massage the ego of the one who is telling the story (or the one who is watching it being told). _Muricocentrism._ It is a shame because Lilenthal and Dumont (and other pioneers) are amazing characters and surely deserved more widespread recognition and praise, just as Wilbur and Orville certainly do

While not powered flight, it's crazy to think that I go hike up a hill with a 8.4 kg paraglider that fits in a backpack and fly around for hours on end. How times have changed. Thank you for this awesome video! Cheers ✌️

So, when Sideshow Bob was going to fly the Wright Bros. plane into Krusty and he says "What the hell is that? A lawnmower?", he wasn't far off.

Totally expected to be about how they became vicious patent trolls after they developed the airplane.

@TwoLotus2

3 жыл бұрын

@Ric Boni The Wrights went to France for an airshow in 1908 with their machine. All the Europeans could do was barely get off the ground and maybe make skidding, non banked turns. The Wrights took off and did figure 8s to demonstrate flight control. The French cried..

@jerecsoria

3 жыл бұрын

@Ric Boni bro calm down.

We're now further away in time from the first manned space flight than that was from the Wright brother's first flight.

“And stability is important if you want to... land.” The delivery there made me laugh!

Nice to see that the Patreon supporters are still thanked in the description

I wonder what the equation's value was that they corrected? Seems like it should be mentioned in the video.

@davidc7765

Жыл бұрын

I have read a lot about the Wrights. If there was a single constant that was wrong, I've never see it reported. Perhaps the Wrights never reported it in their diaries

Probably a great video for those not from Dayton, Ohio. This is required learning during junior high school.

A few suggestions for the next version. You are correct about what the Wright patent was about. An improved way to control an airplane. The Wrights were somewhat successful in defending their patent. They hired a very good lawyer but it still required most of their time. It effectively ended their careers as airplane designers and developers. However, it did give them the wealth they so desired. I think you say that wing warping was controlled by pedals. I believe it was controlled by hip motion until 1906. I like your statements about what they actually invented. They were rarely first to come up with anything. They did say the borrowed from Cayley, Lilienthal, and Chanute. They denied they borrowed from one of Octave Chanute's favorite pioneers, Lawrence Hargrave. I am not sure why. Santos Dumont also refused to credit Hargrave but Voisin who built his airframe had no problem with crediting Hargrave for his early pontooned glider design. As you say, the Wrights' seem to have missed a dozen others contributors but perhaps they were unaware of their contributions. Independent inventions are possible. Their "secret" was not just a way to control an aircraft. It involved learning how to become skilled pilots. Although they didn't really demonstrate that skill early on, perhaps they had the right analogy. They thought that the airplane should be unstable and the pilot should fly the way that bike riders leaned into a turn. All the other pioneers were limited by the analogy that an airplane was like a ship in a sea of error. The task was just to keep the airship from capsizing. The emphasis was on stability. A boat only needed a rudder to make a turn or keep on course. yaw control was enough. The Wrights' opposed the old analogy with the analogy. Control not stability was the key to more advanced designs. They were able to demonstrate their mastery of the air in France in 1908. The other pioneers were amazed but couldn't quite understand how it was done until Wilbur explained it. No one was close to understanding their secret because it was against the prevailing opinion. They went on to set an altitude record and a distance record in 1908. They were the only early pioneers who delighted in strong winds. I hope I have stated this well enough for you to get the idea.

I, very begrudgingly, did a science project on the Wright brothers. I wanted to do it on how much light got transmitted through semi-transparent, colored sheets (like 3-ring binder separators), but I was told that was too hard.

@craigme2583

3 жыл бұрын

The role of teachers is to discourage and tell you what you CANT do.

@BRUXXUS

3 жыл бұрын

Reminds my of my sophomore science fair project. I grew up as a kid wanting to be a chemist, but that year I had an awful chemistry teacher. She was too interested in talking to the jocks and cheerleaders about what they did on spring break than teach chemistry. I wanted to do an experiment on luminol. Seeing if ratio of luminol related to brightness of the glow. When I needed have the chemical ordered she handed me the catalog and told me to call the company myself and just have them bill the school. Of course the company was like, “you’re going to have to have a teacher call, we don’t accept orders from students”, which I expected. When I came back in the room and interrupted the teachers gossip circle she annoyingly said, “fine, I’ll call after class” 🙄 Anyways, I did my project, with no help from her, other than telling me where to find the various equipment and chemicals. Completed my project and entered it into the fair. Meanwhile, she gave me a B- on the project.... Next day I ended up winning the silver metal for the science fair and was invited to bring it to the state level science fair. So frustrating. I still love science and chemistry, but it’s not what I do for a living. It’s crazy how one terrible teacher can kill a kid’s passion for something.

@craigme2583

3 жыл бұрын

@@BRUXXUS they dont realise the influence they have, and what inspiration they can be, if they bothered.

Not a single mention of Santos Dumont? GEEZ AMERICA

@steamcastle

3 жыл бұрын

Nor any mention of Jacob Ellehammer

@radosaworman7628

3 жыл бұрын

Great. Yet another one who claims that f-18's arent flying becouse they use catapult. Xd

@dvilardi

3 жыл бұрын

@@radosaworman7628 not at all my friend. I totally agree that the Wright brothers were indeed the pioneers. I'm just making a general complaint about how america never even mentions Dumont's presence in any literature (it gets completely erased from your books). It's as if you don't want him to be remembered. Why should that be?

@radosaworman7628

3 жыл бұрын

@@dvilardi thats not what i expected. Pleasently suprised.

Another great scishow video. Hank, I love your material. Keep up the awesome work.

@thatgirlreacts5465

3 жыл бұрын

How is this great? They didn’t even mention who actually invented the plane!

As someone from Dayton, I am happy to hear an concise explanation of what made the Wright Brothers so great. A fine example Of Daytonian Engineering.

The Wright brothers invented the most important process I learned in college. Build in stages, test in stages.

I just re-read their biography by David McCullough... it's a good'ern! The most important thing the Wrights did, after 3-axis control, was to *learn to fly* . Piloting a plane is a skill not easily obtained... imagine being the *first* to do so! France was mad about aviation... the Wrights could not get a good crowd in the USA, so they went to France (where the military was ready to cough up bux) and wowed the crowds with their skill... people freaked when Bleriot flew 100 yards in a straight line, here's Wilbur *doing figure eights* and flying for hours. Teaching pilots was how they really started European aviation... USA aviation was set way back by the patent disputes between Curtiss and Wright (now a single company!)... WW1 was fought without US planes. Lots more to it... read a book folks.

@stevie-ray2020

3 жыл бұрын

Wrong!!! Gustave Whitehead was first to achieve controlled, powered flight, & it was documented photographed, & reported in a numerous newspapers around the world! Not only that, one of his two engines on board his aeroplane also could be switched to power the wheels enabling him to drive it to the field (also making it the first flying-car!), where he took off, piloted it around a triangulated course before landing it near where he'd taken off from! www.gustave-whitehead.com/

@radosaworman7628

3 жыл бұрын

@@stevie-ray2020 powered. Yes. But not controlled thus it was a powered leap not flight. Two diffrent categories.

@stevie-ray2020

3 жыл бұрын

@@radosaworman7628 Not controlled? You're kidding aren't you? How could Gustave Whitehead have flown, navigating a triangulated-course, avoided some trees, then returned to land near where he took off from, without any control? You're as brain-washed as everyone else who has swallowed the Smithsonian's BS!

@radosaworman7628

3 жыл бұрын

@@stevie-ray2020 Dude. Smithsonian tried to disproove that whright where first for like 30 years or so. And tell me how he suposses to cotroll pitch and roll. Not even mentioning yaw witch it doesnt have a proper surface for. Look at it. It can only go in the straight line on a windless day!

6:20 "Stability is important if you want to land" only if you want to land intactly, otherwise it's not necessary.

@neiloflongbeck5705

3 жыл бұрын

Except the Wtight Flyer was unstable.

At 6:03 rolling the plane does not make the rudder obsolete. When you roll, the higher wing produces more lift, which induces more drag and the plane will experience yaw in the opposite direction. The modern term for this is called “adverse yaw”, which is something the Wright brothers discovered and had to had to modify their plane in order to achieve controlled flight.

@Crosshair84

Жыл бұрын

The brothers called this "Welldigging". Because when they crashed due to adverse yaw, it sounded like a well pipe being driven into the ground. A prime example of one of the disadvantages to being so far ahead of everyone else. Because they had solved problems that others hadn't, they ran into new problems that nobody else even knew existed.

Otto Lilienthal: I can steer by shifting my bodyweight !!! Every skater that ever existed: Hold my roller bearings...

In these comments are two types of posts. One is people trying to get Santos-Dumont mentioned and the other type is the same but screaming incoherently and trying to put asterisks on the Wright brothers achievement.

@thatgirlreacts5465

3 жыл бұрын

Then there are people with actual cold hard evidence. Unlike the wright brothers. 🤷‍♀️

@hugofontes5708

3 жыл бұрын

@@thatgirlreacts5465 wait, what?

@thatgirlreacts5465

3 жыл бұрын

@@hugofontes5708 I said, then there are people with actual cold hard evidence. Unlike the wright brothers. Are you having trouble reading?

@edi9892

3 жыл бұрын

@@hugofontes5708 There was a German immigrant, I think, who actually beat the brothers in the race to the first motorized flight, but he only made local news and the Wrights did a massive cover-up and predated their flight, as they had pictures of their experiments, but the plane was actually only leaping a few meters on the ground and not taking off!

@thatgirlreacts5465

3 жыл бұрын

@@edi9892 no. Santos-Dumont was the first man filmed flying a plane that met all of the required standards at the time. And he flew it in front of a crowd of professionals that were there to evaluate such requirements. Nothing else counts if it wasn’t evaluated by professionals and has no real evidence.

So all I need is some plywood, some cables, some canvas and a couple of lawnmowers and I got my own airplane?

@cageybee7221

3 жыл бұрын

the lawnmower engines are steel, therefore much heavier. also you need alot of equations to figuer out the correct ing lenghts and the enginnering of the cables, but theoretically yes. also depending on where you live you need permits and licenses.

@jliller

3 жыл бұрын

A very slow and fragile airplane.

@BobbyIronsights

3 жыл бұрын

A little two stroke, a propeller and a fabric wing and you've got yourself a paramotor. Cheapest and easiest and scariest way to get into aviation.

@madjedi2235

3 жыл бұрын

@@BobbyIronsightsyeah paramotors are crazy, I’d love to fly one some day.

@stephenbello1081

3 жыл бұрын

You definitely need duct tape.

I never thought about how much they revolutionized the engineering process, very interesting and inspirational indeed!

It is a sad thing that even the people of SciShow fell for that picture at 11:06. Everyone with a little bit of aerodynamic knowledge can see that the angle of attack of the canard wing (the little wing in the front) is well past the stall angle. What happens when a wing stalls? It basically stops to produce lift. What happens when the canard wing stops to produce lift? The nose falls down. What happens when the nose of the plane drops down? The plane flies downward. (Basically the same thing what had happened to the two 737 max, where the MCAS trimmed the nose of the plane downward beyond recovery) The photo at 11:06 only shows the VERY BRIEF moment between lift off and touch down again, NOT A SUSTAINED FLIGHT. It is the same like taking a picture of a jumping person and claiming it as proof that the person can float in the air.

Who would've thought *this* of all things would be such a contentious topic...

@thatgirlreacts5465

3 жыл бұрын

Not Americans since they’re so self involved they don’t even know aviary’s full history.

@Great_Olaf5

3 жыл бұрын

@@thatgirlreacts5465 I'm aware of the man most commonly getting brought up, heard about him at an air show I attended once. Specifically in reference to the controversy over who deserved the title of first. An American Air Force captain, the one giving the lecture, was of the opinion the Brazilian probably deserved the credit. In the years since, I've come to my own conclusion. Firsts have largely become irrelevant since the early modern period. Scientific inquiry and advancement are so heavily built on the collaberation and expanding on prior knowledge, that arguments of firsts have come to hinge heavily on increasingly narrow definitions seemingly constructed with the sole purpose of excluding whoever the one(s) devising said definitions don't want to get the credit. American egocentrism isn't the problem, *human* egocentrism is, the Brazilians, French, and Germans are no less guilty of this than Americans, and one could argue, they did it first, but that would be disingenuous, because the Greeks and romans did it before them, and Egyptians and Mesopotamians earlier still. I'd love to say removing ego from science is the answer, but it's the egos of scientists that results in their competitions to get things done first, and without that ego, while many problems might be solved, I'm not sure it would be worth the cost. Pride is a powerful motivator, however problematic some of its side effects can be, especially when one is willing to ignore reality to preserve theirs. I don't honestly care if the Wright Brothers did it (however it is defined) first, I just like learning, and this video wasn't titled "The History of Aviation," it was titled "What the Wright Brothers should Actually Be Famous For," with the historical lead up to their designs and constructions as context. Unless they knew about or interacted with the Brazilian, or the German, during the period before their first flight, how much relevance do they have to the topic being discussed.

@krish8269

3 жыл бұрын

This is also a great topic 👌👌. kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y2Fn1rNmgqi4lMo.html

@thatgirlreacts5465

3 жыл бұрын

@@Great_Olaf5 I didn’t say (on my comment to you) that Santos-Dumont should be mentioned. However, I do think a nod to him should’ve been done. He was the first well documented one that met all of the criteria imposed at the time so it would make complete sense to mention him like at the end of the video or something. As a manner of acknowledging since it wasn’t actually the wright brothers. At least not as far as we know since, again, there isn’t enough proof that it was. Their word, a photograph and a few witnesses from people who do not understand anything about planes is not cold hard evidence. As for my claim that Americans dint know about Santos-Dumont due to them being so self involved, that absolutely holds water. None of what you mentioned has any relevance here. This isn’t about ego fueling a thirst for discovery, this is about the average American today acting like they’re the center of the universe. This is about them saying “I’m from Texas” or what have you when asked where they’re from while traveling abroad as if the whole world is supposed to know where Texas, Seattle, Florida, Utah, etc, is. Why not say, Colorado, USA? Nah. They walk the world like they’re to be taken notice of, like everyone knows about them. Abs that’s coming from someone who actually has never even had a bad experience with an American. I’ve just lived in America long enough to be able to observe what they’re like. So yeah, it is all about their self involvement. If it wasn’t, they would at least know if Santos-Dumont’s existence even if they still felt the title should go to the wright brothers. But they dint even know about him, the first man in history who was actually filmed flying his own plane. Why? Because they’re self involved Americans. Pardon the redundancy, I should just say, because theyre Americans. As for the “tittle should go to the Greek, Egyptians, etc-- idk what they could possibly have to do with this but assuming you have some knowledge I dint that they have early conceptions of flying machines (or maybe you just used them as hypothetical examples to illustrate that not one person invented the plane)-- honey, this is about who was the first person who designed and flew a man aircraft device. Not who contributed to its conception throughout history.

Very interesting! I hadn't realized they had done so much detailed physics and engineering in the development. So it wasn't just "Nail this stuff together and see what happens." 👍

@Hamring

Жыл бұрын

There are a bunch of famous videos of inventors trying that approach. Turns out its good for making comedy, less so for any actual flight

Otto Lilienthal was a German engineer, which pioneered human flight and developed aerodynamics. He studied how the birds fly. His followers, including the wright brothers who participated in a flying contest and wan, had all learned how to fly from Otto. But powered flight was not possible before the engine technology was at hand.

man, this is so cool. i love learning about stuff like this

What the Wright Brothers Should Actually Be Famous For: Exactly what they are famous for

@nelsonclub7722

3 жыл бұрын

Being second to being the first to fly?

@nelsonclub7722

3 жыл бұрын

@João Vitor Campos Precisement and exactly right

Great episode! Curious about the '1759' for da Vinci - was that the date on the reproduction of his drawing? Since he was born in 1452 and died in 1519, maybe it should have been '1517'?

I love the enthusiasm you have in your voice.

In a nutshell the Wrights designed, built and flew the first engine powered 3-axis controlled heavier than air aircraft. They engineered it as well meaning their math said it would fly and it did. Along the way they invented the wind tunnel and propeller. Their last (1902) glider was the first to have 3-axis control and in it they learned to fly.

@21mozzie

3 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't say their math said it would fly, more like a potent combination of theory and experiment.

@longlakeshore

3 жыл бұрын

@@21mozzie Oh yes, they worked out the math. The lift tables they developed from their wind tunnel said their airfoil would fly with a given wing area lifting a given weight at or above a particular airspeed. One of the reasons they chose to fly at Kill Devil Hills is because the thrust of their power plant wasn't enough to lift the Flyer in the relatively light winds of Dayton, Ohio. They needed the strong headwinds of the Outer Banks to fly. Otherwise they would have had to build a more powerful engine. As they already had a hangar there for their gliders it wasn't necessary.

Estamos prontos pra falar sobre Santos Dumont?

@caiohenrique1603

3 жыл бұрын

Então né, como sempre os americanos se achando os primeiros em tudo, centro do universo

@dimman77

3 жыл бұрын

He is immortalized by a watch being named after him, the Cartier Santos.

@caiohenrique1603

3 жыл бұрын

@@dimman77 he was actually influential in the invention of the wristwatch, but it’s not like he invented it

@thatgirlreacts5465

3 жыл бұрын

@@caiohenrique1603 concordo plenamente! Tive uma discussão fervente com um americano anos atrás sobre isso que não queria dar o braço a torcer. Muita raiva, mano.

@thatgirlreacts5465

3 жыл бұрын

Vamos encher este vídeo de comentários sobre o Santos-Dumont, brasileirada! 😄😄😄

Thanks to all those who tried to build arial vehicles. Because of their efforts, we can fly.

Thank you scishow! i will use this video as introduction in my STEM lessons. We just finished a whole project around paper planes and how to improve them by taking measurements and trying to eliminate the variables by makeing them constant by buiklding a machines who eliminate human error. a very clear picture about the first human flight! i already put this video it in our document!

This video makes a couple good points, that the Wrights built on previous knowledge and followed a rigorous engineering research and development program, but it is full of errors. Many of the pictures show the wrong thing. They did not just invent 3-axis control, they had to learn how to fly a machine with 3-axis control. In particular, they discovered adverse yaw; the tendency of an airplane to yaw left when banked to turn right. They solved the problem by adding twin rudders to the 1902 glider. The previous gliders did not have rudders. They learned how to make a coordinated turn with the correct mix of wing warping and rudder. They connected the rudder cables to the warping cables. These were not activated with pedals, but with a hip cradle that slid sideways. They lay prone on the lower wing with their hip in the cradle. On the 1904 and later machines, they sat on the leading edge and used a control stick to activate the surfaces. Interestingly, each preferred a different arrangement of the controls, so there was a Wilbur control and an Orville control. They did not measure Smeaton's coefficient, but took a value from existing literature. They did not measure the forces on their wing models, but compared them to the force on plates perpendicular to the air flow, using Smeaton's coefficient to calculate the force and corresponding lift and drag coefficients. When they compared the wind tunnel values and found that they did not match the values for their 1902 glider, they developed fudge factors which they used to design the 1903 Flyer, correcting for scale effect.

Hate to be “that” guy- but Newton’s 3rd law does not explain low pressure over the upper camber of the wing. It- along with equal separation and Bernoulli’s principal doesn’t explain lift.

@jdomarsh

3 жыл бұрын

Don't worry, it bothered me too

0:51 I think the first ever human flight was when one of our never-to-be ancestors missteped off a cliff... It sure was brief, uncontrolled, and most likely unintentional, but it was flight nonetheless.

@ttrev007

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think that is flight. That is falling

@jaschabull2365

3 жыл бұрын

@@ttrev007 "I flied?" "No, you falled."

@jfangm

3 жыл бұрын

Falling is not flight.

@scheimong

3 жыл бұрын

It's a joke people. Obviously.

Fantastic video. I'm glad you pointed out that there most important invention was "Aeronautics" itself. With that invented they could go ahead and make their airplane. You only made one error that I'm aware of. In modern planes foot pedals turn the rudder to control yaw. The Wright Flyer used a hip cradle instead of rudder pedals. They flew in a prone position so foot pedal probably wouldn't have worked. This hip cradle operated the wing warping AND the rudder position when they shifted their hip left or right. If they got the cable design right it would automatically coordinate roll and yaw for a graceful turn. I believe they were trying to make turning the plane as natural as turning a bike where turning the handlebars (rudder) was combined with tilting the bike to the inside of the turn (roll). The book titled "KIll Devil HIll" By Harry Combs should be read by everyone who admires what the Wrights achieved.

Would love to see more videos like this for other inventors and pioneers

Can we just appreciate the fact that some of the most influential inventions and discoveries was inspired by animals? Even down to martial arts, its just so interesting how you can apply aspects of things to create unlimited possibilities

And now they are flightless Dodo's running an airline on Animal Crossing New Horizons. :)

@AGM124PGT

3 жыл бұрын

top comment

@rickseiden1

3 жыл бұрын

@@AGM124PGT Thanks!

+1 for calling out North Carolina for claiming credit for the work of two rather brilliant Daytonians =)

What an awesome episode!

4:12 im pretty sure thats the wrong way. The lift is not produced that way but because of the air going from the top, which following the curve of the wing goes downward and creates the lift

@craigwall9536

3 жыл бұрын

You simply have to accelerate a mass of air DOWN as you pass. It doesn't matter how you do it. Gravity is trying to accelerate the machine down; you have to produce the same upward acceleration and we do it from the reaction opposite to the air we accelerated down with the wing...or the fan...or the rotor... or the kite... The curve is in some ways a Red Herring because the same airplane can fly upside down. But it is far less efficient when inverted if it now has the curve on the bottom. Still works, though...

@auri1075

3 жыл бұрын

@@craigwall9536 kzread.info/dash/bejne/i3iZs7qJftOylbw.html

@auri1075

3 жыл бұрын

@@craigwall9536 i found quite a few more explaining it like that.

Self propultion? where did they put the catapult inside the plane? Santos-Dummond plane the 14-bis had a V8 Antoinette engine inside it, and it flew because of that engine. Not by a contraption mounted on the ground.

@thatgirlreacts5465

3 жыл бұрын

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

@radosaworman7628

3 жыл бұрын

They did it off the rail. It sustained flight and was able to do couple of figure "8" manuver.

@cloudkitt

3 жыл бұрын

The Wrights' plane was capable of taking off without the catapult and did so several times, they simply liked it better.

@armaros820

3 жыл бұрын

So a jet fighter launched from a carrier is not a self-propelled aircraft now?

@Lucaspc99

3 жыл бұрын

@@armaros820 they launch from an aircraft carrier because there is no space for the plane to accelerate, but they had plenty of land to accelerate in the case of the Wright Flyer.

Having too much fun at 1:01 is all I need SciShow you've won

@jmz1736

3 жыл бұрын

Moments like this is why I watch sci show

a small FYI, they did design a hinged control surface as well, they didnt just pick wing flex out of lack of engineering imagination.

They also should be famous for being giant patent trolls.

@derrickthewhite1

3 жыл бұрын

They used the patent system badly, but I don't know if "Troll" is the right word. Patent trolls generally don't do a lot of engineering to get their patents. The Wright brothers were more of monopolists who cared more about controlling their invention than improving it. What they did is still terrible.

Yeah I reeeeaaaaally expected Santos Dumont to be mentioned here... shame

@trevorrogers95

3 жыл бұрын

He burned all his designs and killed himself before sharing any, there’s not much to discuss scientifically.

@ramonduraes9973

3 жыл бұрын

@J J Well, I didn't say he was first... I said I expected his name to have been mentioned

@EduardoAyresSoares

3 жыл бұрын

I agree

@Geerice

3 жыл бұрын

They only talked about the people who proceeded the Wrights, which he didn't

Thank you for this wonderful video. What impressed me about the way the Wright Brother's solved the problem of manned, heavier-than-air, controllable flight was the way they broke down the problem into separate parts. They optimized the wing design by measuring lift and drag with different airfoils in their wind tunnel. They created the control system (perhaps their greatest acheivement) by building gliders and actually flying them. Finally, they (and their mechanic) created a propulsion system with a lightweight engine and a propeller optimized for maximum thrust with that engine. They made the complex problem of creating an airplane simpler by breaking the problem into smaller, simpler parts. I don't think any of their predecessors took this approach.

The rigourous design-build-measure tactic they used with the wind tunnel is a brilliant way to teach the value of the scientific method.

Brazil: "Foda, né mano?"

@thatgirlreacts5465

3 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂

@leogama3422

3 жыл бұрын

Não.

@Madferreiro

3 жыл бұрын

Kkkkkk os americanos acreditam mesmo q voaram primeiro. Entao o voo de santos dummont wm paris foi uma alucinação coletiva.

@jfangm

3 жыл бұрын

Alberto Santos-Dumont flew a full year AFTER the Wright Flyer IIII, which was, by any definition, a proper airplane.

@thatgirlreacts5465

3 жыл бұрын

@@jfangm go study, bro.

The Wrights *should* be known for setting aviation back 10-15 years because they patented *everything* and were constantly suing over their patents.

I think you missed an important point, the key invention was aerodynamic lift generated by pressure zones, rather than "angle of attack" deflection. Angle of attack can give you lift easily but way too much drag to actually work. Same with the propellor, it doesn't act like a fan, more like a high and low pressure zone producer.

When the Wright boys were happy with their 1902 glider, they began to think about adding power. They went to the library and found books on ship propellers which were no help. Propeller operation is very complex, it is very hard to figure out what is going on. Each part of the blade is moving forward at the same speed as the aircraft, but each part has a different circumferential speed depending on its distance from the shaft. Their discussion became so heated that they nearly came to blows. They agreed to separate and cool off. They resumed the discussion the next morning and each had changed sides! Eventually Wilbur figured out a simplified version of what we today call the blade element theory. The resulting propellers were very efficient. Gabriel Voisin went to his death maintaining that the Wrights never flew before they came to France and used a French engine. In the appendix of his autobiography, Men, Women and 10,000 Kites, he gives compelling evidence to support his claim. He lists the weight and power of many of the early airplanes. Some of these planes barely flew. It is obvious from these figures that the Wright machine didn't have nearly enough power to get airborne. But wait, what about those photographs and movies? Something must be missing. Looking at photos of those other early airplanes, we notice something. The propellers are atrocious. Here's one that looks like two fans attached to the shaft. Another looks like two boat paddles bolted to the shaft. Not a clue that the propeller blade must have the right twist so each element encounters the oncoming air at the correct attack angle.

Can yall talk about gustav whitehead who flew in 1901

@Evirthewarrior

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe, he should have, documented it? every picture I have seen of the aircraft he built was on the ground, it is still debated and there is strong evidence that he made it up. The only "witness" to the flight later said he wasn't there. The story was ran in some news papers but no one had any hard evidence that it happened. So clearly he could not repeat his success if he even did it. He seemed to be a fraud that repeated his story several times and no one close to him actually believed he did it, it was only much later did people start trying to substantiate his claims, in my opinion it was most likely them wanting to be contrarians. None of his later "aircraft" flew. You would think a guy that learned how to fly, would have been able to build on his success, especially after the Wright brothers demonstrated how to do it. www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/who-flew-first-290750/

@stevie-ray2020

3 жыл бұрын

@@Evirthewarrior Wrong!!! Gustave Whitehead was first to achieve controlled, powered flight, & it was documented photographed, & reported in a numerous newspapers around the world! Not only that, one of his two engines on board his aeroplane also could be switched to power the wheels enabling him to drive it to the field (also making it the first flying-car!), where he took off, piloted it around a triangulated course before landing it near where he'd taken off from! www.gustave-whitehead.com/

@Evirthewarrior

3 жыл бұрын

@@stevie-ray2020 yea, that is the propaganda, the reality is, it didn't actually happen, the Smithsonian looked into it I linked the article on it. There is no concrete evidence he actually did anything, just a story. None of his later machines flew. If you are going around claiming you flew for miles and when people are interested, you cant get a single machine to fly, you are probably a liar.

@stevie-ray2020

3 жыл бұрын

@@Evirthewarrior Read all of evidence in the link I provided & you'll see why the Smithsonian has perpetrated the Wright-Brothers myth all these years! Other organisations support the Whitehead claim , & there's plenty of newspaper accounts from witnesses at the time, 2yrs before the Wrights efforts at Kittyhawk! Orville forced the Smithsonian to sign his contract writing all other early aviators out of the history books, & as they say; "the rest is history,.....written by the victors"!

@Evirthewarrior

3 жыл бұрын

​@@stevie-ray2020 i have, most of it is not evidence, it is a story that was passed around and repeated, with no credible witness (the witness later said he was not there) and he made some engines later that were used on machines like the wright brothers aircraft to fly. There is no hard evidence he actually flew. Just because someone recreated his machine and that flew decades later, does not mean that his did, different materials, different construction methods, ect, even using the same blueprints does not automatically make his story true. From the story I linked: "Family members reported that they had never seen Whitehead fly. The individuals most closely associated with him, including those funding his effort, universally doubted that he had ever flown. Bostonian Samuel Cabot, who employed Whitehead in 1897, described him as “a pure romancer and a supreme master of the gentle art of lying.” John Dvorak, a Washington University instructor who visited Whitehead in 1904, reported that he “did not meet a single individual who had ever seen Whitehead make a flight.” Stanley Yale Beach, who supported Whitehead’s work for years, agreed: “I do not believe that any of his machines ever left the ground.…”"

Brazil: It's my time to shine

@SuperTah33

3 жыл бұрын

No mention of Santos-Dumont? This is a n t i - B r a z i l i a n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n

@UmbraHand

3 жыл бұрын

1906 was his flight. Before that was alleged. Yeah, real good evidence

@mrcarioca8046

3 жыл бұрын

Brazil was born shining, the world would be sad without Brazil 🇧🇷

@SuperTah33

3 жыл бұрын

@@UmbraHand Santos-Dumont did fly before 1906, amici, just with lighter-than-air aircraft. My reply was more jokey than not, but Santos-Dumont did fly his heavier-than-air aeroplane without rails, dollies nor catapults, unlike the Wrights, and very publicly at that, which is why many institutions and the public accredited him instead. Credit where credit is due, the Wrights did fly a heavier-than-air aeroplane first, and invented the tri-axis steering mechanism which all planes use today.

@SuperTah33

3 жыл бұрын

Additionally, the Wrights refused to fly or publicise outside of Dayton for a time until they had a signed military contract with either the US or France, which only bolstered Santos-Dumont's publicity.

This feels like a crash course episode.

Best summary I've seem. The takeaways - engineering systems process, building on others work and their remarkable contributions.