what state was 1st to fly? ohio, n. carolina, connecticut??

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:47 am

this has been a fun & interesting feud lately of which state can proclaim was 1st to fly?? naturally ohio lays claim because the wright brothers are from Dayton oh, & tested much of there experiments their, not to mention they are among Ohio's favorite sons... that's a no brainer!! geek

. now enter north Carolina where the 1st powered flight was said to be accomplished in December of 1903 @ kill devil hill w/ pictures. now enter as of recently the state of Connecticut which is making the same claim as german born Bridgeport Connecticut resident gustave whitehead made the 1st flight in 1901. with no bias I say it should be credited to both ohio & north Carolina for reasons mentioned above. as to Connecticut, they are a day late & a dollar short in there claim w/ nothing to provincialize or substantiate their claim. be nice kiddies!! :axe:

this will be fun!!

old iron · **Posted:** Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:07 am

Ohio and North Carolina do share credit, and graciously. The Wright brothers are on the quarter-dollar coinage for both states.

k5083 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:26 am

Their license plates also either share or compete for credit, depending on how you look at it. (For foreign readers, Ohio plates bear the slogan "Birthplace of Aviation" while NC's say "First in Flight.")

My vote would go to Ohio, where all the design and engineering work was done, rather than to NC, which was picked just because Kitty Hawk was a godforsaken lonely place where the wind blew a lot.

The Dec. 1903 flights also are overrated as a milestone in the Wrights' evolutionary process. The Wrights' later flyers, the first ones capable of a controlled turn or of flying in other than highly specific conditions, were flown back in Ohio.

Still, NC's claim is better than one I once saw on some civic banners in Yonkers, New York, proclaiming Yonkers the "Birthplace of Golf."

August

Warbird Kid · **Posted:** Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:44 am

It will only be a matter of time until more evidence surfaces that shows that Whitehead flew first. I urge any of you guys, next time your in Connecticut, please come and visit the air museum. We'll give you an in-depth tour of the Whitehead replica! Far more conventional design if you ask me.

It is believed that a photo of Whitehead in flight exists somewhere in the NASM's archives. That might be a little difficult to get if it in fact exists. What we're dealing with here essentially is changing people's religion for many. We've all grown up with only one story line. To now have someone come and say "They weren't the first" angers and automatically creates a lot of skeptics. Which is completely understandable. Hey, nobody ever said changing history would be easy.

barnbstormer · **Posted:** Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:47 am

About 10 years ago, a friend sent me his vanity license plate for my Wright memorabilia collection. As a one-of-a-kind piece, it might be worth something in a Hundred years

But for now it is still worth a lot more in smiles, than dollars.

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:49 pm

Warbird Kid wrote:

It will only be a matter of time until more evidence surfaces that shows that Whitehead flew first. I urge any of you guys, next time your in Connecticut, please come and visit the air museum. We'll give you an in-depth tour of the Whitehead replica! Far more conventional design if you ask me.

It is believed that a photo of Whitehead in flight exists somewhere in the NASM's archives. That might be a little difficult to get if it in fact exists. What we're dealing with here essentially is changing people's religion for many. We've all grown up with only one story line. To now have someone come and say "They weren't the first" angers and automatically creates a lot of skeptics. Which is completely understandable. Hey, nobody ever said changing history would be easy.

there is 1 quirky proviso between the wright family foundation & the smithsonian's national air & space museum, that being the museum had to sign a legal document stating that the museum could never discredit the wright brothers claim that they were 1st or they would lose the flyer / archives / and related memorabilia. the wright family had the document drawn up in 1947 or 48

mustanglover · **Posted:** Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:35 pm

Warbird Kid wrote:

It will only be a matter of time until more evidence surfaces that shows that Whitehead flew first. I urge any of you guys, next time your in Connecticut, please come and visit the air museum. We'll give you an in-depth tour of the Whitehead replica! Far more conventional design if you ask me.

It is believed that a photo of Whitehead in flight exists somewhere in the NASM's archives. That might be a little difficult to get if it in fact exists. What we're dealing with here essentially is changing people's religion for many. We've all grown up with only one story line. To now have someone come and say "They weren't the first" angers and automatically creates a lot of skeptics. Which is completely understandable. Hey, nobody ever said changing history would be easy.

I just do not understand why Mr. Whitehead only flew once and it was not documented.

Why didn't he do it again and work to improve upon his flying machine? Surely there would have been more information and photos as time went on. Didn't he know anyone that had a camera that could of been used on his second, third, fourth and so one flights?

Cherrybomber13 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:41 pm

Why not go and read the 17 witness statements that cover several of his flights.
http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/history/witness-statements/

Perhaps you are aware of the current debate that the 1903 Wright Photo does not show first flight, the plane was actually crashing.

Quoting a recent email from John Brown
"The photo shows, the plane got to about 2ft. of altitiude and its
front wing (canard) was at 4-500% above its scientifically-measured
stall angle. And the historical record also shows, moments later the
plane plunged nose-first into the sand, requiring repairs."

This is based on a windtunnel test that NASA performed with the wright flyer years ago. Quoting Brown again ..."NASA report says the 1903 Flyer was flyable". NASA had taken the whole
1903 Flyer and shoved it in a wind tunnel. One of its findings was that the front
wing stalled above an angle of 6°."

Its an interesting debate that I have been following. I am personally not making judgement yet, Ill leave that to the aerospace engineers.

jtramo · **Joined:** Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:39 pm **Posts:** 359

Quote:

So, what is the evidence for the Whitehead flights?

On August 18, 1901, a Bridgeport newspaper published an article describing a half-mile flight said to have taken place four days earlier. The story was picked up by press associations and spread around the globe in articles based entirely on the original, without adding any new information. James Dickie, the only “witness” named in the original account who could be interviewed, later branded the story a hoax: “I was not present and did not witness any airplane flight on August 14, 1901. I do not remember…ever hearing of a flight with this particular plane or any other that Whitehead ever built.”

Quote:

Here is why I am one of the skeptics: There are no original documents supporting the Whitehead claim. Unlike the Wright brothers, the inventor left no letters, diaries, notebooks, calculations, or drawings recording his experiments, his thoughts, or the details of his craft. While there are a handful of photographs of the 1901 machine, there is not a single verifiable photo of the aircraft in which Whitehead claimed to have flown seven miles in 1902. There is no creditable photo of any powered Whitehead aircraft in flight.

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-f ... 50811.html

myteaquinn · **Joined:** Tue May 24, 2011 6:46 pm **Posts:** 110

I've tried to follow the logic of the people from North Carolina which is as follows: we are the first in flight regardless that the actual aircraft and pilots were from Ohio. Now from that logic ask the governor (or anyone from North Carolina) that if when the University of North Carolina won the NCAA basketball title (I may be mistaken I think that they won one in Indianapolis) does that mean the the Indiana University were the actual NCAA champions?

I'm guessing that you would receive that great all knowing and really really intelligent response "THAT"S DIFFERENT" I for one don't think so.

Cubs · **Posted:** Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:58 am

I'm from NC and I say "first in flight' is kind of a grab at fame.

Speaking of which: Ohio claims to be the birthplace of aviation, NC first in flight. If my parents were residents of Ohio and I was born in Kitty Hawk, NC (say they were on vacation there) Wouldn't my birth certificate say: Birthplace: "Kitty Hawk, NC"? To carry the analogy a little farther. Say they were the first parents in the USA. Couldn't Ohio claim "First in Parenting" ? I think we have our flight slogans transposed. :twisted:

Whitehead may have flown first and strictly speaking, if he did such first, then he should be given credit. However, I think the Whitehead machine was a marginal aircraft at best. Nobody did it like the Wrights, with all their studies and experiment, which produced a 3 axis controlled machine.

First in flight or not. If your are an aviation buff, a trip to Kitty Hawk, NC is must do trip. And when I read the inscription on the monument, I think all the more, the Wrights deserve the credit. Yes, I am biased but, not because I'm an NC resident.

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:29 am

Argue all you want, but everybody knows the first flight was at Luckenbach, Texas in the late 90s'!!!

Warbird Kid · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:20 am

Obergrafeter wrote:

Argue all you want, but everybody knows the first flight was at Luckenbach, Texas in the late 90s'!!!

Wouldn't a successful flight involve a successful landing? :twisted:

old iron · **Posted:** Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:34 pm

The above is more phtographic evidence than has ever been provided for Whitehead.

Warbird Kid · **Posted:** Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:31 pm

old iron wrote:

The above is more phtographic evidence than has ever been provided for Whitehead.

Not true. How does the photos of his aircraft not constitute for great evidence? His aircraft doesn't look like a mockup? It certainly looks flyable to me. But thats me.

http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/history/photos-whitehead-s-no-21/

There have been accidents and crashes related to Whitehead. Are there pictures of his crashed aircraft? Maybe, just either not discovered or brought to light.

Whitehead seems to have been very sensitive about the risk of the public seeing one of his aircraft in a bad light. I believe it was because of his past. He was run out of Pittsburgh in 1899 after crashing into a brick building. He was probably worried about having the same thing happen in Connecticut. Not to mention potentially loosing investors. Just like the holy grail picture, just because we haven't found it yet, doesn't mean it isn't out there.

Warbird Information Exchange

what state was 1st to fly? ohio, n. carolina, connecticut??

Who is online