Alphonse Penaud's Planophore of 1871

[robert arndt]

The model aircraft that led to the aeroplane:

http://www.amars.hpg.ig.com.br/plantas/planoph.html

Rob

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> The model aircraft that led to the aeroplane:
>
> http://www.amars.hpg.ig.com.br/plantas/planoph.html
>
> Rob

This was only one of the progenitors and scarcely the most advanced.

George Cayley laid a lot of the groundwork which was taken up by
pioneers such as Henson, Stringfellow and Lillienthal

Henson was experimenting with gliders and lightweight steam engines
in the 1840's and published his patent (no. 9478) in 1842. This described
a machine with bamboo spars and diagonal wire bracing. The surface of the
planes was to amount to 4,500 square feet, and the tail, triangular in form
was to be 1,500 square feet. The driving power was to be supplied by a
steam engine of 25 to 30 horse-power, driving two six-bladed propellers.

John Stringfellow flew his first steam powered flying machine in 1848 and
his triplane of 1868
is on display in the Early Flight Gallery of the National Air & Space
Museum,
Washington, DC

Otto Lilienthal's work is of course seminal and laid much of the foundations
of what is noiwadays referred to as aerodynamics. In particular his
analysis
of different wing constructions and aspect ratio, wing shape and profile,
based on his experiments were invaluable to those who followed.

Keith

[robert arndt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > The model aircraft that led to the aeroplane:
> >
> > http://www.amars.hpg.ig.com.br/plantas/planoph.html
> >
> > Rob
>
> This was only one of the progenitors and scarcely the most advanced.
>
> George Cayley laid a lot of the groundwork which was taken up by
> pioneers such as Henson, Stringfellow and Lillienthal
>
> Henson was experimenting with gliders and lightweight steam engines
> in the 1840's and published his patent (no. 9478) in 1842. This described
> a machine with bamboo spars and diagonal wire bracing. The surface of the
> planes was to amount to 4,500 square feet, and the tail, triangular in form
> was to be 1,500 square feet. The driving power was to be supplied by a
> steam engine of 25 to 30 horse-power, driving two six-bladed propellers.
>
> John Stringfellow flew his first steam powered flying machine in 1848 and
> his triplane of 1868
> is on display in the Early Flight Gallery of the National Air & Space
> Museum,
> Washington, DC
>
> Otto Lilienthal's work is of course seminal and laid much of the foundations
> of what is noiwadays referred to as aerodynamics. In particular his
> analysis
> of different wing constructions and aspect ratio, wing shape and profile,
> based on his experiments were invaluable to those who followed.
>
> Keith

The Planophore (1871) flew farther and longer than the Wright Flyer
and was more stable. Langley, Chanute, and the Wrights all
acknowledged Penaud's accomplishments.
Got something else to say? (Of course he does... he ALWAYS does)

Rob

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> The Planophore (1871) flew farther and longer than the Wright Flyer
> and was more stable.
>

So what?

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > The model aircraft that led to the aeroplane:
> > >
> > > http://www.amars.hpg.ig.com.br/plantas/planoph.html
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> > This was only one of the progenitors and scarcely the most advanced.
> >
> > George Cayley laid a lot of the groundwork which was taken up by
> > pioneers such as Henson, Stringfellow and Lillienthal
> >
> > Henson was experimenting with gliders and lightweight steam engines
> > in the 1840's and published his patent (no. 9478) in 1842. This
described
> > a machine with bamboo spars and diagonal wire bracing. The surface of
the
> > planes was to amount to 4,500 square feet, and the tail, triangular in
form
> > was to be 1,500 square feet. The driving power was to be supplied by a
> > steam engine of 25 to 30 horse-power, driving two six-bladed propellers.
> >
> > John Stringfellow flew his first steam powered flying machine in 1848
and
> > his triplane of 1868
> > is on display in the Early Flight Gallery of the National Air & Space
> > Museum,
> > Washington, DC
> >
> > Otto Lilienthal's work is of course seminal and laid much of the
foundations
> > of what is noiwadays referred to as aerodynamics. In particular his
> > analysis
> > of different wing constructions and aspect ratio, wing shape and
profile,
> > based on his experiments were invaluable to those who followed.
> >
> > Keith
>
> The Planophore (1871) flew farther and longer than the Wright Flyer
> and was more stable. Langley, Chanute, and the Wrights all
> acknowledged Penaud's accomplishments.

Sure it did but it was a model powered by a rubber band.
A machine capable of carrying a man is a rather more advanced
device and while it may have flown longer than the Wrights first flight the
they assuredly beat its record fairly quickly.

Nobody is denying Penaud certainly did good work but he was one on many.

> Got something else to say? (Of course he does... he ALWAYS does)
>

This is a discussion group old boy, of course other people have
something to say.

Keith

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> The Planophore (1871) flew farther and longer than the Wright Flyer
> and was more stable.

The current world record for paper airplanes flew farther and longer
than the Wright Flyer...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Alan Minyard]

On 2 Jul 2003 09:45:20 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
>> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > The model aircraft that led to the aeroplane:
>> >
>> > http://www.amars.hpg.ig.com.br/plantas/planoph.html
>> >
>> > Rob
>>
>> This was only one of the progenitors and scarcely the most advanced.
>>
>> George Cayley laid a lot of the groundwork which was taken up by
>> pioneers such as Henson, Stringfellow and Lillienthal
>>
>> Henson was experimenting with gliders and lightweight steam engines
>> in the 1840's and published his patent (no. 9478) in 1842. This described
>> a machine with bamboo spars and diagonal wire bracing. The surface of the
>> planes was to amount to 4,500 square feet, and the tail, triangular in form
>> was to be 1,500 square feet. The driving power was to be supplied by a
>> steam engine of 25 to 30 horse-power, driving two six-bladed propellers.
>>
>> John Stringfellow flew his first steam powered flying machine in 1848 and
>> his triplane of 1868
>> is on display in the Early Flight Gallery of the National Air & Space
>> Museum,
>> Washington, DC
>>
>> Otto Lilienthal's work is of course seminal and laid much of the foundations
>> of what is noiwadays referred to as aerodynamics. In particular his
>> analysis
>> of different wing constructions and aspect ratio, wing shape and profile,
>> based on his experiments were invaluable to those who followed.
>>
>> Keith
>
>The Planophore (1871) flew farther and longer than the Wright Flyer
>and was more stable. Langley, Chanute, and the Wrights all
>acknowledged Penaud's accomplishments.
>Got something else to say? (Of course he does... he ALWAYS does)
>
>Rob

You simply cannot get over the fact that the first powered, heavier
than air piloted aircraft was built an flown by Americans and not your
Germanic super men, can you?

Al Minyard

[S. Sampson]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote
>
> Not intending a flame war, but I seem to recall that an Australian inventor
> got his powered, piloted, heavier-than-air a/c into sustained, controlled
> flight to a safe landing even before (perhaps by years) the Wright
> Brothers. His feat, however, did not get the publicity it deserved.

Without his building a wind-tunnel, nothing he did could be understood,
or repeated.

The Wright Brothers were the first people to understand the physics required
to create lift, and thrust. Having flown gliders for several years, they developed
a method for controlled flight. The only thing they didn't figure out first, was that
ailerons beat wing-warping, and regardless of any lawsuit, they missed the boat
on that.

All other claims to previous controlled flight are bogus.

[robert arndt]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On 2 Jul 2003 09:45:20 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> >> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> > The model aircraft that led to the aeroplane:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.amars.hpg.ig.com.br/plantas/planoph.html
> >> >
> >> > Rob
> >>
> >> This was only one of the progenitors and scarcely the most advanced.
> >>
> >> George Cayley laid a lot of the groundwork which was taken up by
> >> pioneers such as Henson, Stringfellow and Lillienthal
> >>
> >> Henson was experimenting with gliders and lightweight steam engines
> >> in the 1840's and published his patent (no. 9478) in 1842. This described
> >> a machine with bamboo spars and diagonal wire bracing. The surface of the
> >> planes was to amount to 4,500 square feet, and the tail, triangular in form
> >> was to be 1,500 square feet. The driving power was to be supplied by a
> >> steam engine of 25 to 30 horse-power, driving two six-bladed propellers.
> >>
> >> John Stringfellow flew his first steam powered flying machine in 1848 and
> >> his triplane of 1868
> >> is on display in the Early Flight Gallery of the National Air & Space
> >> Museum,
> >> Washington, DC
> >>
> >> Otto Lilienthal's work is of course seminal and laid much of the foundations
> >> of what is noiwadays referred to as aerodynamics. In particular his
> >> analysis
> >> of different wing constructions and aspect ratio, wing shape and profile,
> >> based on his experiments were invaluable to those who followed.
> >>
> >> Keith
> >
> >The Planophore (1871) flew farther and longer than the Wright Flyer
> >and was more stable. Langley, Chanute, and the Wrights all
> >acknowledged Penaud's accomplishments.
> >Got something else to say? (Of course he does... he ALWAYS does)
> >
> >Rob
>
> You simply cannot get over the fact that the first powered, heavier
> than air piloted aircraft was built an flown by Americans and not your
> Germanic super men, can you?
>
> Al Minyard

Buying into that NASM crap again Al? The Gustave Weisskopf GW No.21
flew in 1901- two years before the Wrights and it was witnessed by
hundreds of people and reported in the local newspaper. But because
the scientific reporter did not like taking photos (preferring to
sketch instead) and the fact that Herr Weisskopf was not a US
citizen... he has been deliberately and conveniently dismissed. It
probably helped that the Wrights pressured the US to declare their
aircraft the first in order to recieve their permission to display
their aircraft in the US and the fact that Weisskopf tried to
concentrate on early aviation motors- his personal business that
ultimately failed which led him back to Germany and his death.
The Wrights have stated that the GW.21 "could have never flown" due to
its construction. But they were proven wrong by two different
replicas, one flown here in the US by a historic society and the
second in Germany with a Luftwaffe pilot at the controls.
BTW, who cares about the Wrights? The Germans had Lilienthal's gliders
and the Zeppelins.

Rob

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not intending a flame war, but I seem to recall that an Australian
inventor
> got his powered, piloted, heavier-than-air a/c into sustained, controlled
> flight to a safe landing even before (perhaps by years) the Wright
> Brothers. His feat, however, did not get the publicity it deserved.
>
> Hence my appeal to any Aussies out there who might have leads or further
> info. Could it have been a true story I read? Did an Aussie first do the
> deed? Thanks for any assistance.
>

You're thinking of Richard Pearse. While some Australians claim Pearse flew
before the Wrights, Pearse himself never made such a claim. An examination
of available data on Pearse's machines suggests it's very unlikely Pearse's
machine ever achieved powered flight of any kind.

http://www.flyingmachines.org/pears.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Buying into that NASM crap again Al? The Gustave Weisskopf GW No.21
> flew in 1901- two years before the Wrights and it was witnessed by
> hundreds of people and reported in the local newspaper. But because
> the scientific reporter did not like taking photos (preferring to
> sketch instead) and the fact that Herr Weisskopf was not a US
> citizen... he has been deliberately and conveniently dismissed. It
> probably helped that the Wrights pressured the US to declare their
> aircraft the first in order to recieve their permission to display
> their aircraft in the US and the fact that Weisskopf tried to
> concentrate on early aviation motors- his personal business that
> ultimately failed which led him back to Germany and his death.
> The Wrights have stated that the GW.21 "could have never flown" due to
> its construction. But they were proven wrong by two different
> replicas, one flown here in the US by a historic society and the
> second in Germany with a Luftwaffe pilot at the controls.
> BTW, who cares about the Wrights? The Germans had Lilienthal's gliders
> and the Zeppelins.
>

Whitehead's flight witnessed by hundreds of people? Nope. Whitehead "flew"
at night, supposedly to avoid crowds. Of course, flying at night offered a
convenient explanation as to why nobody had seen his machine fly.

http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwhtd.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:19:19 -0400, "Lawrence Dillard"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Not intending a flame war, but I seem to recall that an Australian inventor
>got his powered, piloted, heavier-than-air a/c into sustained, controlled
>flight to a safe landing even before (perhaps by years) the Wright
>Brothers. His feat, however, did not get the publicity it deserved.

There's a web site I recall, that very thoroughly lists the
aeronautical events of a German immigrant who was reputed to have had
some success predating Orv and Wil. There are doubtless other like
minded, unpublicized individuals who realized some measure of
successful powered heavier-than-air, sustained, controlled flight.

The Wright's were the progeny of a clergyman, bright, educated for
their day, successful businessmen, and had the foresight to
photo-document and journal their work. But what truly set them apart
from other aeronautical (crackpot?) experimenters of the time was
their abhorrence of the press.

This was the beginning of the era that became (and still is) dominated
by the use of petro-power to provide useful work that had till then
been the provence of steam. Harnessing the energy of the oily remains
of the life that has populated this planet for aeons, made man's
taking to the skies inevitable.

[robert arndt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message k.net>...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Buying into that NASM crap again Al? The Gustave Weisskopf GW No.21
> > flew in 1901- two years before the Wrights and it was witnessed by
> > hundreds of people and reported in the local newspaper. But because
> > the scientific reporter did not like taking photos (preferring to
> > sketch instead) and the fact that Herr Weisskopf was not a US
> > citizen... he has been deliberately and conveniently dismissed. It
> > probably helped that the Wrights pressured the US to declare their
> > aircraft the first in order to recieve their permission to display
> > their aircraft in the US and the fact that Weisskopf tried to
> > concentrate on early aviation motors- his personal business that
> > ultimately failed which led him back to Germany and his death.
> > The Wrights have stated that the GW.21 "could have never flown" due to
> > its construction. But they were proven wrong by two different
> > replicas, one flown here in the US by a historic society and the
> > second in Germany with a Luftwaffe pilot at the controls.
> > BTW, who cares about the Wrights? The Germans had Lilienthal's gliders
> > and the Zeppelins.
> >
>
> Whitehead's flight witnessed by hundreds of people? Nope. Whitehead "flew"
> at night, supposedly to avoid crowds. Of course, flying at night offered a
> convenient explanation as to why nobody had seen his machine fly.
>
> http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwhtd.html

Absolutely false:

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp

Rob

[robert arndt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > The model aircraft that led to the aeroplane:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.amars.hpg.ig.com.br/plantas/planoph.html
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > >
> > > This was only one of the progenitors and scarcely the most advanced.
> > >
> > > George Cayley laid a lot of the groundwork which was taken up by
> > > pioneers such as Henson, Stringfellow and Lillienthal
> > >
> > > Henson was experimenting with gliders and lightweight steam engines
> > > in the 1840's and published his patent (no. 9478) in 1842. This
> described
> > > a machine with bamboo spars and diagonal wire bracing. The surface of
> the
> > > planes was to amount to 4,500 square feet, and the tail, triangular in
> form
> > > was to be 1,500 square feet. The driving power was to be supplied by a
> > > steam engine of 25 to 30 horse-power, driving two six-bladed propellers.
> > >
> > > John Stringfellow flew his first steam powered flying machine in 1848
> and
> > > his triplane of 1868
> > > is on display in the Early Flight Gallery of the National Air & Space
> > > Museum,
> > > Washington, DC
> > >
> > > Otto Lilienthal's work is of course seminal and laid much of the
> foundations
> > > of what is noiwadays referred to as aerodynamics. In particular his
> > > analysis
> > > of different wing constructions and aspect ratio, wing shape and
> profile,
> > > based on his experiments were invaluable to those who followed.
> > >
> > > Keith
> >
> > The Planophore (1871) flew farther and longer than the Wright Flyer
> > and was more stable. Langley, Chanute, and the Wrights all
> > acknowledged Penaud's accomplishments.
>
> Sure it did but it was a model powered by a rubber band.
> A machine capable of carrying a man is a rather more advanced
> device and while it may have flown longer than the Wrights first flight the
> they assuredly beat its record fairly quickly.
>
> Nobody is denying Penaud certainly did good work but he was one on many.
>
> > Got something else to say? (Of course he does... he ALWAYS does)
> >
>
> This is a discussion group old boy, of course other people have
> something to say.
>
> Keith

Say something to this:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Prehistory/late_1800s/PH4G9.htm

Rob

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
news:<bdvgdg$nhh$1
>
> Say something to this:
>
> http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Prehistory/late_1800s/PH4G9.htm
>
> Rob

It was a very nice toy but scarcely to be compared with a powered machine
that could carry passengers.

Keith

[Alan Minyard]

>>
>> You simply cannot get over the fact that the first powered, heavier
>> than air piloted aircraft was built an flown by Americans and not your
>> Germanic super men, can you?
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Buying into that NASM crap again Al? The Gustave Weisskopf GW No.21
>flew in 1901- two years before the Wrights and it was witnessed by
>hundreds of people and reported in the local newspaper. But because
>the scientific reporter did not like taking photos (preferring to
>sketch instead) and the fact that Herr Weisskopf was not a US
>citizen... he has been deliberately and conveniently dismissed. It
>probably helped that the Wrights pressured the US to declare their
>aircraft the first in order to recieve their permission to display
>their aircraft in the US and the fact that Weisskopf tried to
>concentrate on early aviation motors- his personal business that
>ultimately failed which led him back to Germany and his death.
>The Wrights have stated that the GW.21 "could have never flown" due to
>its construction. But they were proven wrong by two different
>replicas, one flown here in the US by a historic society and the
>second in Germany with a Luftwaffe pilot at the controls.
>BTW, who cares about the Wrights? The Germans had Lilienthal's gliders
>and the Zeppelins.
>
>Rob

What utter BS. The fact that the US beat Germany (and the rest of the
world) in this particular feat diminishes the "Blond Germanic Knight"
syndrome, and thus must be wrong. Hitler would have loved it.

Al Minyard

[Larry Dighera]

On 4 Jul 2003 19:23:23 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>It probably helped that the Wrights pressured the US to declare their
>aircraft the first in order to recieve their permission to display
>their aircraft in the US

Actually, Orville Wright prevented the Smithsonian from displaying the
original Flyer until after his death, IIRC. It was on display in
London until then.

>The Germans had Lilienthal's gliders

Not to disparage the accomplishments of Otto Lilienthal, but it was
the inaccuracies of his airfoil data that led the Wrights to build
their wind tunnel, IIRC.

And for airmen throughout the world, such as the Columbia crew,
Lilienthal's last words still ring true: "Sacrifices must be made."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Say something to this:
>
> http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Prehistory/late_1800s/PH4G9.htm
>

It's a toy.