Correct me if I am wrong but did not a scale model of the Langley “Aerodrome” actually fly for a considerable distance around 1900. Would this qualify for the first powered heavier than air flight?
BTW Have been to the Airforce Museum, this is a must if you like aviation. The place is huge, free and contains everything from a Sopwith Camel to the XB-70.
I just KNOW I’m gonna open up a whole can of whoop-ass on myself here, but…tough darts.
It really doesn’t matter that the research, and manufacturing happened in Dayton. Look at other milestones. The event that occurs that is of import, and the place where THAT event occurs, is the milestone. Wanna send man (sic) to the moon? Make stuff ALL over America, assemble it in the V.A.B. in Cocoa Beach, out on that scrubby little Cape, and fire it off. Cape Kennedy gets the press, because IT WAS THE POINT OF DEPARTURE.
The Bonneville Salt Flats were ( and I guess still are) famous because Craig Breedlove set land speed records THERE- the local became famous, because the EVENT occurred there.
It just seems to me that when one wants to recall an event, the context of where it happened is inescapable. Local pride or not, it did NOT fly in Dayton. It flew on Kill Devil Hill, in North Carolina. Period.
Cartooniverse.
That should have read, " The LOCALE ", not local. No excuse for illiteracy.
Well, if your criterion is where the event happened, then Cape Canaveral doesn’t deserve the creit, either. Neil and Buzz didn’t land on the Moon at Kennedy Space Center, they landed in Mare Tranquilitatis. And if you insist on crediting the departure point, then Dayton should get the credit for the Kitty Hawk flight… They took their plane from Dayton to Kitty Hawk, and then flew it. Put another way: The US won the Gulf War… but they did it over in the Persian Gulf. Does that mean that it wasn’t really an American accomplishment?
Yes, by the way, I am an Ohioan.
Even the most generous definition of aviation that I can find would exclude balloons. Most definitions includes only powered flight, but powered lighter-than-air craft are usually (not always) excluded. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines aviation as “the development and operation of heavier-than-air aircraft.”
If government bodies were aptly described by their names, the Labor Department would do labor, the Interior Department wouldn’t deal with the Great Outdoors, and, it can be hoped, Military Intelligence would be a little bit smarter.
O yeh, you know the new US state quarters are coming out in ratification/admission order, and North Carolina is going to put the flyer on theirs. Do we need two quarters with the Wright brothers on them?
Go heels 
fly to move or pass through the air, to float, wave, or soar in the air.
Although the strict definition of “aviation” means to fly a heavier-than-air craft, balloons would be excluded; but the “most generous definition”, as you say, would encompass balloons and airships. “Aviate” means to navigate through the air. The direction of balloons can be controlled by climbing or descending into air currents of different directions. Not a lot of control, but control nonetheless. Blimps and derigibles obviously can be navigated through the air (and they are not heavier-than-air craft). So if “navigate” means “to control the course of”, and balloons’ courses can be controlled (even crudely), then balloons can be navigated. If “aviate” means “to navigate through the air”, then balloons can be “aviated”. If one is engaged in the act of aviating, then one is engaged in aviation.
Since the Montgolfier brothers were the first to fly, and since they flew in a balloon, and since balloons can be controlled to a certain extent, and since aeronauts are defined legally and colloquially as pilots, the “Birthplace of Aviation” would be France.
Of course, if you really wanted to be strict, a parachute, being a heavier-than-air device that offers some control in the air, could be considered an “aircraft” (a heavier than air structure for navigation in the air that is suuported by its own boyancy – i.e., a balloon – or by the dynamic action of the air against its surfaces – e.g., the canopy of a parachute). IIRC, the first parachutes were made in Italy.
They flew the plane in North Carolina. And as a native of that state, I’m proud of it.
As for Ohio–y’all Yankees won the war, aren’t you happy enough with that?
etgaw1:
Lots of high hills and soft sand to fall on in case of failure.
Edward the head:
You mean the site of it, or do they have a re-creation of it? Because, if I recall correctly, the original was moved to Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan. (Or is that one the re-creation? I thought the buildings there had been transplanted, not re-created.)
I had a Carolina history book that claimed that the Wright brothers, thorough as they were, analyzed weather data for many (hundreds?) of places and went with the place with where the average wind speed was closest to their computed ideal wind condition.
The soft sand probably made a difference, but I don’t think the hills did. That does give some more creedence to Carolina’s claim for priority, having been judged by the Wrights to be ideal.
Anyway, the supposed upshot was that the windspeed at their chosen site was either zero, or double–and only averaged out.
Damn. I’m posting the same info on 2 threads within 10 minutes.
The WB went to Kitty Hawk because, after they wrote to the US Weather Service asking for suggestions of places with the wind conditions they wanted, the Weather Service said try Kitty Hawk.
Make that the US Weather Bureau, not Service. Details, details…
The Brazilians claim Santos-Dumont was the first to fly-in fact, they are planning to disrupt the first centenary of flight celebration (no being planned for 2009). Get your tickets early!
As I said in the other thread, my information came from what I read at the Wright Brothers National Monument about a year ago. I’ll try to find a source I can quote you guys.
Chaim Mattis Keller
So we meet again, Chaim.
To recap, etgaw said:
“Can’t remember why they went to NC to fly the plane”
You relied:
“Lots of high hills and soft sand to fall on in case of failure.”
As I just posted on the other thread, my big problem with your reply is that you did not even MENTION the favorable wind conditions at Kitty Hawk.
I will happily concede that the dunes/cliffs and fluffy sand probably clinched it for KH, but the PRIMARY attraction about the place was its ideal winds.