The pioneer plane and the controversy surrounding its history.
Conforming to the tradition of our first and continuing blog, we will rely on primary documents, publications, and witness statements. "Another Truth" will address the seemingly unending revisions of "facts" by aviation historians, based on assertions by Orville and Wilbur Wright. It will counter their accusations that the scientists, aviators, and witnesses, who conducted and observed the 1914 tests of the Langley plane, were guilty of fraud and misrepresentation; and it will shine some light on the Wright oriented propaganda about the Langley history as it stands today.
It can be proven that the truth has been manipulated in the Wright-biased history to present a distorted narration of what really happened.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
"It appears that the only thing which would satisfy Dr Wright and his partisans is for the Institution to say it believes what it does not believe; namely that Langley's plane as of 1903 was by its nature incapable of flight. I cannot recommend the Institution to publish an untruth."-C. G. Abbot, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, November 6, 1941 (emphasis by TIAH) 1
"Entirely erroneous impressions have been given by the account of these experiments in the public press, from which they have been judged, even by experts; the impression being that the machine could not sustain itself in flight. It seems proper, then, to emphasize and to reiterate, with a view to what has just been said, that the machine has never had a chance to fly at all, but that the failure occurred on its launching ways ; and the question of its ability to fly is consequently, as yet, an untried one."-- Professor Samuel Pierpont Langley--"Experiments with the Langley Aerodrome" 2 (emphasis by TIAH)
______________________________________
"In spite of later claims, there is no reason to believe that the full-scale Langley Aerodrome was capable of flight."____________________________________________
The Real Story of the Langley Aerodrome
Both failures of Professor Samuel Pierpont Langley's attempts to launch his full size aerodrome in 1903 were spectacular. Newsmen were there to observe the collapse of the plane into the water and to gleefully report the whole debacle. Cameras photographed the scenes as they occurred, and the pictures preserved the images of the wrecks for all time.
 |
| The failure of Langley's second attempt at launching his full sized aerodrome-- December 8, 1903 |
The professor had devoted two decades studying the problems of aerodynamics. Many (but not all) of his studies had been published. In that time he had contributed much to the knowledge of the principles of flight. He was also high profile--Secretary of our then cherished Smithsonian Institution and highly accredited as a scientist and as a member of the aeronautic community. It was he, Professor Langley, who had proven that heavier-than-air, powered flight was possible with the 3,300 feet flight of his large steam powered model in 1896. See Truth in Aviation History
Correctly predicting that manned flight would give us an advantage in warfare, the U. S. Government decided to provide him with a $50,000 contract (equivalent to over a million dollars today) to build and fly a manned, powered, heavier than air plane. It would be based on the design of his successful model, which Langley named the "Aerodrome."
It looked like a dragonfly. It was a tandem configuration (see artist's renditions, above) with two pairs of wings set at a dihedral angle to provide stability, all four set with the outside edges higher than the inside. Langley's experiments had proven that a high aspect ratio provided more lift than a low one and by how much--his wings had a longer length to width. See Truth in Aviation History The camber (depth of curve) of the wings was originally 1/18.
Langley carried out more careful experiments with smaller models of the machine's design, including a quarter-sized model. In the subsequent 1911 report, his assistant, Manly, made it abundantly clear that they knew that the strength of a successful full sized plane would have to be increased over that of the models-- exponentially. As scientists, they made thorough calculations as much as possible and multiple tests to secure the necessary strength.4
Still, Langley had to design his plane to be as light in weight as possible. The ribs of the wings were even made hollow.
It was decided to add an additional curve along the leading edges of the wings,5 similar to a "droop," a "slat," or a "cuff" that's employed on some modern planes. These are extensions that provide more wing area and an extra curve to the camber of the wings. At take off when it's critically needed, they provide more lift; and after the plane is safely aloft, the droop and slat can be withdrawn into the wing. Langley's extension wasn't retractable like a "droop or a slat," but together with pioneers Dr. Zahm and Lilienthal, who suggested and/or employed such extensions, he was ahead of his time.
On Langley's aerodrome, the extensions increased the camber of the wings from 1/18 to 1/12, the camber of Lilienthal, successful glider pioneer. Increased curve is not as efficient in drag as a lower (flatter) camber, but will provide more lift.
Most pioneers believed by this time that the last and most important problem to be solved in manned flight was a lightweight, efficient engine. They were mostly correct. Langley hired a designer named Stephen Balzer, but he was unable to complete his job after spending thousands of dollars of Langley's government grant. After another search, Langley found an extremely talented engineer named Charles Manly, a cracker jack who produced an engine that was a marvel of the day. His machine was able to achieve 52 horse power, and it weighed 207.5 pounds (correction as of 2/19/26 )* It would drive two propellers.
It seemed that all was a go. It was now a matter of building the plane, attaching the Manly engine, and launching the plane into the air with a pilot on board. The pioneers were set for their first test in the fall of 1903.
Langley had built a houseboat with a launching ways on top to take off over a river. The idea was to jump start the plane forward with a loaded spring. After projecting the machine the length of the launching ways, the impetus of the spring and the engine would propel the aerodrome into the air. The launch over water provided an element of safety, both for the plane and for the pilot in case of an accident or a fall. Langley's decision proved to be fortuitous.
The two attempts at launch failed, and the plane with its pilot, Charles Manly, fell into the river. They were duly fished from the water, but the professor had run out of money for a third attempt to launch.
 |
| Langley's first launching failure, October 7, 1903 |
But the story was far from over. The debate over the validity of Langley's Aerodrome would continue for more than a century. And it continues even to this day.
Much more to come on this intriguing story...
1 Letter to Mrs. G., LOC letters, Subject file 1941, Page 15, Smithsonian Institution--Dispute--Correspondence 1940-1941 (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.04149/?sp=15)
2 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_73/November_1908/Experiments_with_the_Langley_Aerodrome
t and Charles M. Manly. Langley Memoir on Mechanical Flight, Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge, Volume 27, Number 23. Washington 1911, Smithsonian Institution. pp. 129-30, pp186, pp188-9 et al.
5 Langley, Ibid. p 205
* The weight of the Manly engine varies enormously, depending upon whom you use as a reference. At present, the URL I am using is: http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/AnnalsofFlight/pdf_hi/SAOF-0006.pdf. Obviously more research is needed on this fact.
 | |||
| 1941 letter from Secretary C. G. Abbot, stating his position on the Langley Aerodrome |
