Paul Jackson - Excerpt, Response to Journalist, March 22, 2013
A mere five years ago, I wrote a piece in the Jane's AWA foreword which mentioned, in passing, the Wrights having launched the age of aeroplane flight. I now believe I was wrong; and happy to admit to such, thanks to John's research [referring to this site's author, John Brown]. Forgive a self-congratulatory statement, but I wish that others were equally ready to admit that they have been wrong....
When John contacted me to ask whether I thought his researches would hold water, there were two challenges for me to address; two questions to be asked.
First: “Was Whitehead’s aircraft capable of flight?” Second: “Did it fly?” [].
Straight away, I was fascinated by the theory that a serious injustice had been done and that the history books needed to be re-written.
I adopted an engineer's approach. Too many debates about Whitehead have been kicked into the 'long grass' by diversionary wrangling over whether this or that witness was reliable; ...could have been mistaken; ...had an axe to grind; ...was a liar/fantasist/attention-seeker, etc. And that entirely spurious "Where's the photograph?" argument. I chose, first, to look at the engineering facts:
1. Was Whitehead’s aircraft capable of flight?
By 1900, the leading aviation pioneers possessed reasonably effective wings and propellers — not as efficient as today’s, but good enough to get them into the air and keep them there for a while.
The problem was that they didn’t have engines light and powerful enough to propel their aircraft. Engine technology was holding the aeroplane back. Uniquely, however, Whitehead had the benefits of Otto Lilienthal’s aerodynamic experiments back home in Germany, and he was also skilled at making good engines, having trained with MAN in Germany.
If any one person was first in a position to put together two main elements (reasonable wing and reasonable engine) needed for aeroplane flight, it was Whitehead.
Also, making my decision even easier: a replica of the Whitehead aircraft has been built in recent years....and shown that it can fly.
The Wrights executed a few short 'hops' in December 1903 with an aeroplane having a sophisticated wing and a 12 hp engine; Whitehead flew two years before in an aeroplane with an inferior wing, but 30 hp installed power to overcome that deficiency. Whitehead flew by brute force triumphing over aerodynamics, but there is nothing in the rules of 'coming first' that says you are not allowed to attack wallnuts with a sledgehammer.
Therefore, on the engineering facts alone, I am professionally convinced that the Whitehead aircraft was capable of flight.
2. That changes the second, historical, question from “Did it fly?” to “How could it not have flown?”
We know that Whitehead had a flyable aircraft.
...He was dedicating all his efforts to flying
...Newspaper articles (the first written by the Editor of the Bridgeport newspaper, who was present and saw with his own eyes) reported his flights on more than one occasion in 1901 and (a different aeroplane) 1902
...In later years, 17 people made formal statements saying they saw him fly
John's research completely destroys the previously accepted view, circulated by Orville Wright, that only one provincial newspaper took Whitehead seriously. Contrarywise, for a while, he was front-page news around the World and his work featured in learned journals such as The Scientific American and Aeronautical World.
Bizarrely, the most convincing argument for Whitehead having flown first comes from Orville Wright. In 1945, the surviving Wright brother wrote in an aviation magazine about the “Whitehead Legend” — dismissing the man and his aircraft as not worthy of serious consideration.
One can understand an old man like Wright wanting to make sure of his place in history, and one can accept that he might misinterpret a few facts in his own favour.
Had Wright said, “My brother and I were first to fly, but we were lucky to be first because this man Whitehead also had a darn fine aircraft” then that might be, just, believable.
However, as an aircraft engineer and designer himself, Orville knew full well that Whitehead’s Condor aircraft was a serious, flyable machine. Further, it beggars belief that he was so switched-off about the progress of aviation in 1900-03 that he missed the fact that Whitehead was flying a second, different aeroplane in 1902. Nonsense: He and his brother would have hung on to every word written and spoken about eveyone else trying to fly an aeroplane in those days -- and while they may have missed an edition of the Bridgeport Herald, is is not credible that they did not hear about it and also neglected flying articles in The Scientific American and the Aeronautical World. Orville deliberately and maliciously dismissed Whitehead's two aircraft and implied that any thoughts of them taking to the air were a joke. That sounds to me like a man desperately trying to bury some inconvenient facts.
Thus, if flying were a crime, I would expect a jury to convict Whitehead on the circumstantial evidence alone.
Paul Jackson - Excerpt, Response to Journalist, April 2, 2013
Paul Jackson - Excerpt, Response to Journalist, June 23, 2013
1. When did you start to be interested in the research of John Brown?
About a year ago.
2. How did he persuade you to believe that Whitehead flew 2 years earlier
than the Wright brothers?
John did not persuade me. His evidence did. I looked at it from the point of view of (a) an aviation engineer and then (b) an historian. First I asked (a) COULD it have flown? Second, having answered "yes", I asked (b) DID it fly? If you look at what is being said by the people who say Whitehead did not fly, you will see that they have difficulty in making clear focus on these two different questions. Their replies jump between one question and the other.
(a) Could it fly? Yes. It was a powered hang-glider with a wing designed by
Lilienthal who, even today, is honoured as a great aviation pioneer who made 2,500 gliding flights. It had a powerful engine built by Whitehead (even the Wright Brothers said, in a letter which
exists today, that Whitehead built good engines). In short, it was a proven hang-glider with 30 horsepower and one person aboard. Every weekend, tens of thousands of hang-gliders with such small
engines are flown for recreation by enthusiasts around the world. (The Wrights had 12 hp for their first aircraft.) And two replicas of Whitehead's No 21
have flown in later years. There are other newspaper and magazine reports uncovered by John which show that Whitehead was knowledgeable about the theoretical science of flight; so Whitehead
approached the problem of flight in a scientific manner; he was a serious and capable researcher.
(b) The evidence that John has uncovered adds strength to what has been said
about Whitehead in the 1930s -- while there were still people alive who had seen him fly. It was only after Whitehead had died and these people had died that it became possible to deny their story.
There were 17 witnesses; a newspaper editor witness; two or three newspeper reporters who saw the picture of Whitehead's aircraft flying; two US government investigators who spoke to people who had
seen Whitehead fly and who knew about the technical details of his aircraft.
In summary: Whitehead's aircraft (TWO different aircraft, No 21 and No 22) were capable of flight -- and people saw them flying.
3. When did you decide to recognize this result as part of the 100th Edition of Jane's All the World’s Aircraft?
By last November, John's evidence had convinced me that Whitehead was first. The
100th Anniversary of "Jane's All the World's Aircraft" was in 2009 -- when there was a big celebration. This year is the 100th EDITION (because we lost five editions during [or just after] the two
World Wars). In the 100th anniversary edition of 2009, I said that the Wright Brothers were first to fly an aeroplane. By late 2012, I knew I had been wrong, and that I had to do the honourable thing
and say so to my readers.
4. Why, according to your view, does the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum insist on not accepting the result? And why do you choose to accept it?
I cannot speak for the Smithsonian. Remember that until the 1940s, the
Smithsonian DENIED the Wrights were first to fly; they said a man called Langley was first. The Smithsonian looked at the evidence for the Wrights for 40 YEARS and said, "No, No, No; the story of
the Wrights is utterly wrong; there is no evidence to say that the Wrights flew first. The Wright story is rubbish." Then Orville Wright made a deal with the Smithsonian: They could have his
aircraft (which he had given to a museum in England) if they said he and his brother were first. So, since then, the Smithsonian has been saying "Yes, Yes, Yes; the story of the Wrights is
completely correct; there is plenty of evidence to say the Wrights flew first. The Whitehead story is rubbish".
The Smithsonian has never said what new EVIDENCE they saw in the 1940s, which they had not known about in the 1900s, 1910, 1920s and
1930s. They just changed their story.
I chose to accept the (Whitehead) version because of the evidence that I have mentioned above: It COULD fly; and people saw it fly. There was no reason for those 20+ people to tell lies; no reason
for two official investigations to make false evidence; and no reason for Whitehead's local newspaper to print false stories on several occasions between August 1901 and January 1902.
If you were wrongly accused of killing somebody, and 20+ people said they were with you at the time and you did not commit the crime, would you tell the judge they were liars and he should not listen
to them? I don't think so! Let us allow our witnesses speak for Whitehead, and let us believe them.
Sincerely,
Paul
Druckversion 