# Wright Brothers...........What if? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2003, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159 "2003-12-01T02:44:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/21 "2003-12-02T17:48:19Z")
> [@](#): > > (The Germans would rather have used helium despite its lower buoyancy than hydrogen, but the US wouldn’t sell it to them under anti-Nazi sanctions). While it is true that the U.S. would not sell helium to Nazi Germany, the Germans never asked to buy it, preferring hydrogen with its greater lift. At no time was Germany refused helium and at no time did they attempt to purchase it. (Remember, the Germans were sticking to hydrogen all through the twenties when there was no political barrier to sales.) ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/22 "2003-12-02T17:55:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*While it is true that the U.S. would not sell helium to Nazi Germany, the Germans never asked to buy it, preferring hydrogen with its greater lift. At no time was Germany refused helium and at no time did they attempt to purchase it. (Remember, the Germans were sticking to hydrogen all through the twenties when there was no political barrier to sales.) \*\* I can’t supply I cite, but I do recall reading something which confirmed this, and also asserted that the Nazis attempted to score propaganda points by claiming that the Hindenburg disaster was the fault of the Americans’ refusal to sell helium… ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/23 "2003-12-02T18:20:57Z")
From [url=“[http://www.ciderpresspottery.com/ZLA/greatzeps/german/Hindenburg.html](http://www.ciderpresspottery.com/ZLA/greatzeps/german/Hindenburg.html)”]: > [@](#): > > Dr. Hugo Eckner, then still the chairman of Zeppelin, had decided that it would be the wisest course to inflate his new ship with the nonflammable gas helium. … The United States, having the only natural deposits of helium in the world, was getting more and more suspicious of Hitler and his new Third Reich. Government officials wondered if the Zeppelin could be used for military purposes such as they were in World War One and favor in giving Dr. Eckner the helium was waning. … Even after a meeting with President Roosevelt, the decision was made in the U.S. Congress. The Helium Control Act would make it impossible for the Zeppelin Company to obtain helium for their new ship. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/24 "2003-12-02T18:23:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*But they wouldn’t have been dominant anyway. Even if there had been a big Zeppelin industry (say, if for some reason aircraft hasn’t been invented for another 40 years), then as soon as aircraft of suitable range and safety were developed they would have immediately displaced the Zeppelin anyway. \*\* The development of Zeppelins wouldn’t have stopped either, you know. New engine designs would still have appeared, improved cargo-carrying zepplins would have evolved, and I suspect somebody would have advanced the “tilt-rotor” concept for zeps. And, suppose the Autogyro or helicopter had evolved next, after the Zeppelin, before the Airplane? Between fuel-efficient, long-ranged Airships on the one hand; and STOL or VTOL aircraft on the other, the Airplane might have been dismissed out of hand, as a mere novelty vehicle. Nobody would be willing to put the serious money or time into improving it to the point where it would be competitive. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/25 "2003-12-02T20:29:07Z")
[This link](http://www.first-to-fly.com/History/History%20of%20Airplane/history.htm) leads to the history page of the site of the official keepers of the Wright Brother’s flame. Even _they_ admit, in an admirably even-handed fashion, that the Wright Brothers were simply the first to the finish line of fully-controlled, powered flight. (Powered flight itself had been a reality for 20 years before Kitty Hawk, but you could control your trajectory about as well as a HotWheels or Matchbox car steers.) Many were working on it, and it would have come about eventually, possibly within only a few years of the Wrights. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/26 "2003-12-03T01:15:40Z")
> [@](#): > > And, suppose the Autogyro or helicopter had evolved next, after the Zeppelin, before the Airplane? Between fuel-efficient, long-ranged Airships on the one hand; and STOL or VTOL aircraft on the other, the Airplane might have been dismissed out of hand, as a mere novelty vehicle. Nobody would be willing to put the serious money or time into improving it to the point where it would be competitive. Nonsense. There are hard technical reasons why autogyros are lousy platforms for mass transportation. There are also hard technical reasons why we don’t fly around in V/TOL or V/STOL aircraft. It has nothing to do with who ‘won the race’ or got the first development funds. It has everything to do with efficiency, speed, and cost-effectiveness of the engineering choices involved. Regardless of what had been invented and when, aviation would look pretty much the same today. For example, biplanes were invented before monoplanes, and dominated aircraft designs for the first 20 years of aviation. Then they almost completely vanished except for some specialized applciations. Why? Because biplanes are not an optimal design for most uses. As soon as the materials came along to build strong cantilevered monoplanes, the biplane was doomed. There’s very little ‘inertia’ in aviation. The jet displaced propeller aircraft almost overnight - ask the guys who designed the Lockheed Constellation. ---
**Author:** ![ronbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@ronbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ronbo)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/27 "2003-12-03T01:46:41Z")
The Wright Brothers were [secretive](http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/preww1/pw8.htm). It was more important to them to patent their invention than to share flight with the world. Only when [Santos-Dumont](http://www.rudnei.cunha.nom.br/FAB/eng/santos-dumont.html) got publicity on his 23 October, 1906 flight, were they forced to share their invention. I don’t know a better answer to your question: Would someone else come along? Someone else did. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/28 "2003-12-03T01:47:14Z")
I have to agree with **Sam** (despite my fondness for props and bipes) Different aircraft have different uses. Helicoptors are wonderful for construction due to vertical lift capability and the ability to stay in one spot. This also makes them excellent for certain types of rescue work. But helicoptors are not very good for long distance travel (although I do know a fellow with a Robinson 22 who has flown from Indiana to the Pacific Ocean and back twice) or hauling really big loads. They require a LOT of maintenance and a LOT of fuel. That’s why cargo aircraft tend to be fixed wing jets - for hauling a lot of stuff a really long distance fixed wing jets work better than helicpotors or props. For short hauls, though, props are still very useful. That’s why FedEx maintains the world’s largest fleet of Cessna Caravans - a single engine prop plane designed to haul small cargo loads short distances out of smaller airfields. The Caravans funnel loads from smaller markets in more remote areas to cargo hubs where they load up the FedEx 747’s. Prop planes are also still used for crop dusting - jet exhaust is very hot and 'dusters fly low, you won’t want to dust the crops then roast them. (Helicoptors are also used for crop dusting, but only on very small fields or in tight spots where fixed wing aren’t as useful) The ONLY niche in aviation that’s not being filled is the not-so-fast long haul bulk cargo niche. And for that zepplins and blimps would be very good. There have been proposals to use smaller zepps for cargo in places like Africa. One major advantage is that they _don’t_ require extensive airfields on the ground, just a mooring post and a lot of ground crew. In Africa, human labor is abundant, paved runways are not. Problem is, the locals don’t have the capital to set this up, and outsiders either don’t want to fund such a project, or else have too many associations with “Hindenburg” and “explosion” and shy away. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/29 "2003-12-03T03:47:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Broomstick \* > At the time of his death, Lilienthal was developing a motor with the intention of mounting it to one of his gliders - had he not died man-carrying powered flight might well have started in Germany in the 1890’s rather than in the US in the 1900’s. He had a great deal of work to do in the control department before this could have succeeded. > [@](#): > > About that link - every other source I’ve read indicated that Otto _stalled_ his glider, not that a wing had broken. Everything I’ve read agrees with you. > [@](#): > > Lilienthal’s control problems had a definite infuence on the Wrights - they were aware of his work, communicated with him several times I hadn’t heard this. The standard story is that one of the triggers for their serious interest was Lilienthal’s death. In the 1952 compilation of their complete correspondence, the earliest entry is Wilbur’s famous letter of 30 May 1899 to the Smithsonian, asking for published papers on the subject of manned flight. No correspondence with Lilienthal is mentioned in Orville’s 1920 deposition on the origins of their interest in manned flight. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/30 "2003-12-03T04:12:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > The main technological innovation that enabled powered flight was not an aerodynamic breakthrough, but the availability of engines of sufficient power to weight ratio. The Wrights would not have agreed with this. Their big innovation (and the development for which they were granted a patent) was 3-axis control, first demonstrated on their 1902 glider in early October of that year. The engine they used on their 1903 Flyer was a rather neat piece of work given the short time they took to build it, but it was nothing very special for that time. > [@](#): > > There were a LOT of people working on powered flight, and nearly succeeding. Consider Hiram Maxim, who built an aircraft in the late 1800’s that had elevator control, and he planned to use differential engine thrust for turning. It was an impressive piece of work on which he spent a fortune. But it got not much closer to practical and controlled flight than a steam locomotive could. > [@](#): > > Clement Ader actually did fly a powered, heavier than air craft 185 feet in 1890, using a compressed air engine. In his 1987 book _Wilbur and Orville_, historian Fred Howard states that in a report (held secret until 1910) of the French commission that observed Ader’s experiments, the _Avion_ didn’t actually fly - only the rear wheel left the ground before it was overturned by a gust. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/31 "2003-12-03T05:04:07Z")
The Wrights’ self-designed engine actually had a much worse power-to-weight ratio than even the typical designs of the period, so that was in no way their breakthrough. Langley, by contrast, had oodles of horsies but it didn’t get him anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![myles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@myles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/myles)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/32 "2003-12-03T05:33:08Z")
In fatalities per passenger-mile, zeppelins were much safer than heavier-than-air craft of the 1900-1938 period. Before the Hindenberg, the Zeppelin company had no passenger fatalities in commercial operation. ---
**Author:** ![myles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@myles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/myles)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/33 "2003-12-03T05:34:10Z")
The Hindenberg didn’t burn because of the flammable lifting gas. Hydrogen is quite safe, if you take reasonable precautions. It does burn, and it leaks like a bastard… but when it leaks, it goes _up_. Fast. That’s why so many of the Hindenberg’s passengers and crew were able to get to safety. The flames went _up_, and it didn’t explode. People in the gondola had a fair chance of making it. The Hindenberg burned because of the doping compound on the exterior fabric cover. They’d just switched to a new one… composed largely of aluminum oxide and ferric oxide. This is more commonly known today as “rocket fuel”. It’s also quite similar chemically to the filling of incindiary bombs. Tests have shown that the older doping compounds wouldn’t ignite from static-discharge sparks; the type used on the Graff Zeppelin was quite safe. The Hindenberg’s compound goes up like a bomb from spark discharge. That was what did it. ---
**Author:** ![myles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@myles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/myles)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/34 "2003-12-03T05:35:51Z")
Airships are a perfectly practical technology – they had a better safety record than heavier-than-air flight. The Zeppelin company accomplished a great deal, but their funding was extremely uneven. Some dribs and drabs from the military, and public subscriptions, etc. (This was a common problem of pre-1914 inventors with things that weren’t immediately profitable; the economy of the day had great difficulty financing long-term R&D.) Look at what they did during the war, when the funding problems were “solved”: by 1917 they had a ship that could take 12 tons of cargo all the way to East Africa and back! So, what if someone like Carnegie (who was giving away tens of millions) or Krupp had decided to spend millions on airship R&D, every year, from 1900 on? By 1914 there might well have been dozens of airships on intercontinental routes. Things that only became possible in the 1960’s – air-freighted fresh fruits and flowers, for just one example – would have become commonplace in the 1920’s. That would have affected the development of heavier-than-air travel, too. ---
**Author:** ![myles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@myles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/myles)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/35 "2003-12-03T05:37:31Z")
Incidentally, the Zeppelin company has a new passenger dirigible under construction; I’ve visited their website, and the bird looks seriously cool. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/36 "2003-12-03T11:37:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Broomstick_ > > At the time of his death, Lilienthal was developing a motor with the intention of mounting it to one of his gliders - had he not died man-carrying powered flight might well have started in Germany in the 1890’s rather than in the US in the 1900’s. > > He had a great deal of work to do in the control department before this could have succeeded. At that point so did everyone else - including the Wrights Lilienthal’s glider DID have a control system - he did it by shifting his weight. Quite an athletic workout from the eyewitness reports. It wasn’t a _good_ system, but it worked for a couple thousand flights which put him ahead of everyone else at the time. Clearly, though, such a system would be impractical for anything larger than a one-person glider. Hang gliders and “trikes” - basically a hang glider with motor - are _strictly_ weight-shift steering, but their control bars are much more efficient than Lilienthal’s leg-thrashing. There are two-person hang gliders and trikes, so the technique is not limited to strictly single-place aircraft. Weight-shift IS a valid means of controlling a flying machine. Weight-shifting CAN be used as a back-up control system for very small fixed wing aircraft. The Cessna 150 is a 1600 maximum gross weight airplane, but it can be steered by the pilot (and passenger, if you have one) shifting position within the airplane. There is also a record of a Piper Tomahawk recovering from a previously unrecoverable spin when the pilot physically shifted his weight forward in the airplane (he unbuckled and climbed up on the instrument panel). So the principal involved is still worth noting since it can be useful in an emergency. (I would not recommend it for normal operations) Virtually anything fixed wing with a gross weight of under 1500 lbs can be weight-shifted. I’ve flown aircraft with an empty weight of under 500 lbs - point at something to one side you’ll find yourself start a slow, gentle turn. In ultralights we used to weight-shift steer for the fun of it. Lilienthal’s approach was flawed, but in 1895 it was _less_ flawed than anyone else’s. We really don’t know what direction his experiments would have taken him, had he not been killed. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Broomstick_ > > Lilienthal’s control problems had a definite infuence on the Wrights - they were aware of his work, communicated with him several times > > I hadn’t heard this. The standard story is that one of the triggers for their serious interest was Lilienthal’s death. In the 1952 compilation of their complete correspondence, the earliest entry is Wilbur’s famous letter of 30 May 1899 to the Smithsonian, asking for published papers on the subject of manned flight. No correspondence with Lilienthal is mentioned in Orville’s 1920 deposition on the origins of their interest in manned flight. It is possible I am wrong on this one - it’s been a while since I looked into it. I am _certain_ they were aware of Lilienthal’s work, although they might have required translation from the German. I thought they had corresponded directly but perhaps not. I don’t have a definite cite at this point so I’m not going to argue it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/37 "2003-12-03T14:08:48Z")
Link. Lilienthal had died in 1896 just as the Wrights were starting to get interested in the flight problem, and it may even have inspired them in a way. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/38 "2003-12-03T14:11:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scotandrsn \* > Even _they_ admit, in an admirably even-handed fashion, that the Wright Brothers were simply the first to the finish line of fully-controlled, powered flight “Admit”? The Wrights _were_ first to figure out something nobody had before. They _had_ been the first to come up with several of the pieces of the puzzle, and they _had_ been the first to put them all together. The fact that others were close to doing does not detract from their accomplishments in any way - the others hadn’t done it, and they had. There’s nothing to apologize for. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/39 "2003-12-03T17:04:00Z")
Just FTR, the Wrights’ 1903 engine, built by and largely designed by their assistant Charles Taylor, put out 12 HP and weighed 200 lb, for 0.06 HP/lb. The contemporaneous Langley engine, designed and built by his assistant Charles Manly, put out 52 HP at 341 lb, for 0.15 HP/lb. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159/40 "2003-12-03T18:09:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Broomstick \* > Lilienthal’s glider DID have a control system - he did it by shifting his weight. Quite an athletic workout from the eyewitness reports. It wasn’t a _good_ system, but it worked for a couple thousand flights which put him ahead of everyone else at the time. Clearly, though, such a system would be impractical for anything larger than a one-person glider. I think this is the important point. The control system he used for his 2000 flights (a total of about 5 hours over 5 years) was not useful for practical powered flight. Thus, though he was certainly the most accomplished heavier-than-air aviator prior to the Wrights (they always gave him credit), it’s fair to say that he never really got started on the essential problem of control. > [@](#): > > Hang gliders and “trikes” - basically a hang glider with motor - are _strictly_ weight-shift steering, but their control bars are much more efficient than Lilienthal’s leg-thrashing. There are two-person hang gliders and trikes, so the technique is not limited to strictly single-place aircraft. Weight-shift IS a valid means of controlling a flying machine True - it became so with developments of the 1960s. But this was long after Lilienthal. > [@](#): > > Weight-shifting CAN be used as a back-up control system for very small fixed wing aircraft. Given the normal range of motion available to a pilot and passenger, weight shift can probably have a few percent of the effect that that ailerons and elevator can produce. It makes an interesting demonstration, but falls short of being a practical backup. For example, executing a successful landing in a C-152 using weight-shift alone would be astonishing. > [@](#): > > Lilienthal’s approach was flawed, but in 1895 it was _less_ flawed than anyone else’s. We really don’t know what direction his experiments would have taken him, had he not been killed. Agreed. I think it’s also correct to add that nothing he did or wrote would allow us to predict that he was on the way to solving the 3-axis control problem. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wright-brothers-what-if/216159.md?page=3)