Warbird Information Exchange

I don't have a dog in this fight, nor am I suggesting that Tom Crouch has any bias in one direction or the other.

But I, for one, would not like to issue a formal statement on behalf of the NASM concerning Whitehead with "the contract" hanging over my head.

Can you imagine being recorded in the annals of aviation history as "The one who lost the Wright Flyer from the Smithsonian"? It is for this reason that I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that a statement from the NASM should somehow constitute the final word in this matter.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

How about we talk about Welch vs. Yeager?

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

Here's a question about "The Contract";

Who exactly is the 'vendor' to whom the Wright Flyer would be returned in the event that the Smithsonian decided to issue an equivocal statement?

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

So he's not biased, except that he must be because of "the contract"? Honestly, the Wright Flyer isn't going anywhere, and Tom is far too serious a scholar to not express his honest opinion. His statements refute the Whitehead claims in a well researched and presented manner, if somebody can provide a better argument to the contrary I'd like to see it, but where the statements come from doesn't change their viability.

_________________
http://www.biplanerides1.com/

The Wright Family Estate - Not sure who that accounts for now a days

_________________
Andrew King
Air Museum Director with no Museum to Direct
Open to Suggestions

John Brown responded to Mr. Crouch via an open letter which I suggest that you read at
http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/open-l ... h-3-24-13/
This quote should wet your appetite.

_________________
Andrew King
Air Museum Director with no Museum to Direct
Open to Suggestions

"I therefore fail to see how you are qualified to review my work" and this "I consider you one of the world’s most qualified historians" are in the same few sentences. I am sorry I wish you all the best, but I still am in the camp that the Wrights did it first. This reminds me a little of the whole George Welch fables.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

And, "minor" problem with Mr. Brown's statement, the "contract" does not require that Tom Crouch can "never state anyone flew before the Wrights." It says that if the Smithsonian allows or publishes such a statement then the Flyer will go back to the Wright family. Tom Crouch is not required to lie if proof surfaces that an earlier claim has merit. Does anybody really think that if that proof did surface the NASM would ignore it (and yes, I'm sure there are those of you who would think that...)? What would be in it for them to ignore true history?

The bottom line is that "evidence of the existance of a photo" still isn't enough, nor is any of the other weak evidence presented by Mr. Brown. Interesting, yes. Proof, or even overwhelming evidence, no.

From Tom Crouch last week:

http://newsdesk.si.edu/sites/default/fi ... ntract.pdf



-

_________________
http://www.biplanerides1.com/

They'd get to keep the Wright Flyer for one thing.

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

And exactly why would they want to keep it if everybody knew that it wasn't the first airplane? That would be making the same mistake they made back in the 1910s, and I really don't think the place is run anything like the way it was then. Do people think that NASM has some kind of institutional pride that would force them to lie in the face of overwhelming proof, if that existed?

Here's a quote from NASM curator Peter Jakab regarding this "controversy", and this is from 2005, the question being what if proof surfaced that Whitehead flew first:

"We would present as accurate a presentation of the history of the invention of the airplane as possible, regardless of the consequences this might incur involving the agreement. Having said that, however, at this time, as in 1948, there is no compelling evidence that Whitehead or anyone else flew before the Wright brothers."



-

_________________
http://www.biplanerides1.com/

Hello all,

I read Brown's presentation of evidence presented on the webpage. It all is interesting, but in no way convincing. To summarize:

Whitehead advocates have long maintained that there once was a photograph of a powered Whitehead aircraft in flight. There is also a drawing made I think for a newspaper article of a flying Whitehead. There was a display of Whitehead material including photographs in 1906, and a picture of this general exhibit was taken and has been preserved. Brown greatly magnified that picture to get very blurred images of the photos in that 1906 display, one of which he maintains is the photograph from which the newspaper drawing was made.

From my point of view (and for whatever it is worth, I am a research scientist), Brown's case relies on a number of assumptions and I think pretty much concludes what it wants to conclude. The magnified photo shows no real detail; the only evidence to my eye that the photo and drawing may be related is that both appear to show a wood rail fence in the lower right corner. While being in the context of this exhibit I think it fairly safe to assume that the magnified photo shows an aircraft, the image itself shows nothing that can be resolved. Brown maintains that it is an aircraft, pointed in the opposite direction from that of the drawing. If so, this could be a powered aircraft under tow (which I think is the likely explanation), or in true flight, or a glider. It is not even obvious to me that the image shows an aircraft in flight rather than on the ground. That Brown does not appear to consider the alternatives speaks volumes to me. Brown's presentation reads to me much as the Whitehead case generally reads, which is of advocates who see and read what fits their presumptions.

We have also heard in this thread that the Smithsonian makes their interpretaton based on promises made to the Wright family upon the 1948 donation of the original 1903 Flyer. Crouch in his prsentation presents this document for all to read. My reading here, and I have long studied the Langley/Wright dispute (please keep in mind, that dispute was post-Langley, just as the Whitehead dispute happened after Whitehead's death) is that the agreement there applied to Langley; the Smithsonian stated plainly that the Langley dispute had been resolved in favor of the Wright brothers. The Smithsonian, and Tom Crouch in particular, have long had an interest in the early American aviators. As to "flight" the Smithosnian and other mainstream aviation historians use that term as meaning under control. Many people, quite possibly including Whitehead, managed to "hop" but there is no good evidence that anyone managed controlled flight to anything close to what the Wrights achieved.

It is only by changing the general definition of flight that the Whitehead advocates can make any case at all, and once they change that definition there are any number of people who might have previously "flown" and for whom the evidence is much more available and consistent. Whitehead was an interestng experimenter, and he was one of many early researchers who showed that the time was ripe for flight, but the Wrights were the first to achieve that goal. As far as I known, once the Wrights showed what "flight" really was, Whitehead himself never argued that he "beat them to it."

My apologies for the long post.

_________________
Kevin McCartney

Do you want a Gustave Whitehead flew first T-Shirt? Pre Order yours here. This shirt, custom designed by Warbird Wear for the CASC and approved by Andy Kosch and the Gang in Connecticut.
S-XL $20 2x-3x $22 Nice quality, shipping included in the USA. . They will ship in about 2 weeks. If you want multiples or out of the country please email CASC@ctairandspace.org to discuss options.
https://sites.google.com/a/ctairandspac ... ehead/home


whitehead_ver.3-01 by Cherry Bomb Photography, on Flickr

_________________
Andrew King
Air Museum Director with no Museum to Direct
Open to Suggestions

And Brown lost me at this one...

Throwing out stuff like that is a great way to defend your argument.

I don't see what the fuss is about, the Wrights and Whitehead and others were all early aviation pioneers and should be recognized for their accomplishments. Each had their successes and failures. I think it is wonderful that Whitehead is being discussed and that Connecticut should celebrate him as a local aviation pioneer.

_________________
Share your story: Rutgers Oral History Archive http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/

Cherrybomber, you were one day late releasing the t-shirt!

August

Part of this post was edited by me to conform with forum policies. - Scott D. Rose, WRG Editor

Just saw on the CASC Facebook page that the Whitehead memorial fountain in Connecticut has been vandalized.

As awful as that is I kind of hope it was a "random act" rather than some wacko all riled up about the debate over who was first. People are nuts.

_________________
Share your story: Rutgers Oral History Archive http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/