News & Comments from our Members
What Happened to the Wright Brothers After 1903 and 1908? by F. E. C. Culick, Vol 66, No. 1 Spring 2021.
We had a number of members’ comments regarding this article with several noting that we probably could have picked a more appropriate title. The following are among a sampling of those comments received.
Thank you for publishing the important and informative article “What Happened to the Wright Brothers After 1903 and 1908?” by F.E.C. Culick. Rather long, but the detail was necessary. I might have preferred a different title, since the events after 1903 and 1908 are covered only in the last four pages, but no matter.
The important point is that Mr. Culick has done his homework. I particularly relate to his findings since they are consistent with my own, as covered in my just-published novel A Romance of Flight (Mountain Arbor Press, 2021). Wilbur was indeed the primary developer of powered, controlled flight. I may have presented the case in a fictional context, but my account is consistent with that of Culick. Orville obviously wanted equal recognition with his older brother, (see How We Invented the Airplane, originally published 1953, from Orville’s text of 1920), but the documentation provided by Culick clearly establishes the dominant role of Wilbur.
Again, a significant contribution to aviation history.
Donald Pattillo #20121
The AAHS Journal has a duty, I believe, to serve as a platform from whence “revisionist” history can be nominated but I, for one, found this one most disturbing. Wilbur, in his correspondence, almost inevitably used the terms “we” and “our” in describing their work, and the notion that any such a partnership must rise to the level of absolute “equality” is unreasonable.
Dan Hagedorn
Since he was cited by Dr. Culick, we reached out to Dr. Tom Crouch (The Bishop’s Boys) for comment. After reviewing the article, the feedback he provided stated, that he agrees Wilbur was clearly the one moving things forward before the first trip to Kitty Hawk in 1900. Beyond 1900, Dr. Crouch indicated that he doesn’t concur with Dr. Culick’s conclusions saying that there are numerous points for which counter arguments could be cited. He stated one of the strongest arguments against Orville being strictly a follower is that Wilbur insisted that his brother write the first long account of their work, “The Wright Brothers’ Aeroplane,” that was published in Century Magazine, September 1908, p. 641-650.
Dr. Crouch also referenced a quote by Grover Loening, who remarked that, “Glenn Curtiss was a great mechanic and Orville Wright was a great engineer.”
While I found Dr. Culick’s analysis interesting and thought provoking, I think in the end we are left with no clear proof regarding his postulations about the Wright brothers. It seems to me that it is probably a case of where neither could have achieved success by themselves. What may be more likely is that Wilbur was the aerodynamacist or designer while Orville was the engineer that was able to translate concepts and ideas into practical implementations. To say one or the other was the “brains behind the operation” would be disingenuous because neither could have created the Wright Flyer alone.
I think their father stated this most succinctly. “Neither could have mastered the problem alone. As inseparable as twins, they are indispensable to each other.” (Bishop Milton Wright, January 16, 1904).
To support this point, one can look at the role that Orville played with the Dayton Wright Airplane company from 1917 to 1923. One of his last efforts in the early 1920s was the Dayton Wright OW-1 (Orville Wright 1). This four-place single-engine aircraft established a number of world records and, in essence, formed the basis of the design of most general aviation aircraft that have followed. And this was an effort made long after Wilbur’s passing.
Hayden Hamilton
AAHS Managing Editor
Superfortresses for the RAF, The Boeing B-29 Washington in U.K. Service, by Tony Fairbairn, Vol. 66, No. 1, Spring 2021.
In this article the author mentions that, “…while WW349 was still in the U.K. being prepared for despatch at the Vickers aircraft company at Wisley, Surrey, it was struck by a taxiing Vickers Valiant and so badly damaged that it was written off.” Member Michael West has provided a photo of the damaged aircraft (obvious why it was written off) along with an excerpt of the accident report as follows:
On Wednesday 20 April, 1955, the daily inspection for flight on Valiant WP216 was carried out. The aircraft was granted a Form 1090 Serial No. 57725 at 09.40 hours.
After all signatures had been obtained from Mr. C. Allen, 1st Pilot, a normal pre-flight check was carried out by crew and aircraft taxied to west end of runway and lined up for takeoff. Pilot then taxied aircraft down . . .