Disappointed to hear of the delays, but health and family are more important - Waiting is no issue.

44 minutes ago, bofhlusr said:

I hope you're not confusing correctly with perfectly. Nothing will be perfect in software produced for entertaining millions sold at consumer prices.

I'm English, i know the difference 😉

51 minutes ago, Waldo Pepper said:

From your own link,

 "An" eye witness report? 

Color me skeptic.  I do not believe they had a functional steam powered aircraft with a boiler that needed stoking.   I doubt they had an airfoil that could lift such an engine,  it's boiler,  and two men.   I doubt that they could build such an engine with sufficient power to weight ratio.    Sound incredulous to me.

Then again,  I really don't care who invented it.  I'm glad that it was invented.

Not so far-fetched really.

When I was a little Dutch girl living in Holland in the 1870s there were two local inventors in our village that had built and successfully flew a steam-powered monoplane built out of sturdy Oak, horsehide glue and snot. The secret to their success was that in order to conserve weight they separated the coal tender as a non flying ground-bound component similar to today's concept of ground power units, but it was a CPU (Coal Power Unit) rather than a GPU. They would stand on the main Promenade deck of the flying machine while their servants would follow behind on the ground in a horse-drawn carriage and toss chunks of coal up in the air to them, and after catching each piece the Aviator / Engineers only had to chuck it into the boiler.

Obvious shortcomings were that the aircraft was limited to flying only routes that had traversable roads (making for the original implementation of IFR or "I follow roads" and actually predating VFR flight by a couple of decades), and any strong updraft would cause the machine to fly above an achievable CTA (Coal-Tossing Altitude) in effect rendering the craft to be CPU bound.

 

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by Stoopy

 

to doubt means to Not Know.

1 hour ago, Waldo Pepper said:

From your own link,

 .......

from Wikipedia:

"However, this also corresponds to a secret treaty that the Smithsonian signed with the Orville Wrights family in 1948. [34] In return for taking over the model aircraft of the Wright brothers, the museum undertook to always represent the Wright brothers' claim to priority"

The replica of the flying machine No. 21 during the flight demonstration at the Ingolstadt-Manching airfield. One of the main tasks of the Gustav Weisskopf Research Association for Flight History was the re-engineering of Weisskopf's flying machine "No. 21" from 1901. The manned tow plows achieved with the replica in 1996 and, above all, the successful, controlled motorized flights in 1997 provided proof that the technology used by Weisskopf in 1901 was suitable for flights. It was also proven that the machine was capable of performing controlled flights. The statements of contemporary witnesses about Weisskopf's pioneering achievements were thus confirmed.

Top view of the airworthy replica "No. 21B".

The replica 21B was presented to the public in a media presentation at Manching Airport on February 18, 1998. With a test pilot at the wheel, he flew a distance of around 1000 meters at a height of about two meters, landed, turned around and flew back the same distance. Both flights took about 90 seconds.

...................

The Australian flight historian and pilot John Brown ensured a renaissance of the dispute over the world's first powered flight through his publications on the Internet and in book form. Brown has compiled many contemporary newspaper reports in several years of research which, in his opinion, show that Gustav Weißkopf flew in a motor-powered aircraft two and a half years before the Wright brothers. [29] Brown asserted that - contrary to earlier speculations - in 1901 at least 274 newspaper articles were written about Weisskopf's maiden flight.

In the leading article of the oldest annual specialist magazine Jane’s All the Worlds Aircraft, its editor-in-chief Paul Jackson represented Gustav Weißkopf's claim to the first powered flight in 2013. [30] The magazine itself later referred to this point of view as Paul Jackson's personal contribution to the discussion. [31] Nevertheless, the Wright brothers' unilateral claim to the maiden flight is no longer officially recognized. The official position of Jane's is now that there are different conclusions from historical research [32].

Tom Crouch, historian and senior aeronautical curator at the Smithsonian Institution's Air and Space Museum, maintains that there is no convincing evidence of Whitehead's maiden flight. [33] However, this also corresponds to a secret treaty that the Smithsonian signed with the Orville Wrights family in 1948. [34] In return for taking over the model aircraft of the Wright brothers, the museum undertook to always represent the Wright brothers' claim to priority

 

38 minutes ago, Stoopy said:

When I was a little

not a bad historic contribution, not bad considering your avatar😀

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by turbomax

5 hours ago, kaosfere said:

For everyone's sanity, ...I'll just note it's nothing as dramatic as folks are thinking here, and it's not any sort of reaction to the update.

Just wanted to get that out there, since people are already talking about potential firings or death.

Thanks for the positive info.

I didn't see anyone speculating about death however. For my part, I merely put it out there that joking that somebody had been fired when it could potentially be a serious health issue was uncalled for. Certainly glad it seems to be little to worry about👍

3 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Perhaps there were people who flew before Wright brothers. However, Wright brothers were the first one who "video documented" it!

 

very true. and the first to force the Smithsonian institute to sign a secret treaty that the Smithsonian signed with the Orville Wrights family in 1948. In return for taking over the model aircraft of the Wright brothers, the museum undertook to always represent the Wright brothers' claim to priority if they wanted the original replica. the Smithsonian, "an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge". why sign a secret treaty when there is indisputable proof? why not open to science, whatever the results may be? a "secret treaty" that is their understanding of "the increase and diffusion of knowledge"?

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by turbomax

58 minutes ago, turbomax said:

very true. and the first to force the Smithsonian institute to sign a secret treaty that the Smithsonian signed with the Orville Wrights family in 1948. In return for taking over the model aircraft of the Wright brothers, the museum undertook to always represent the Wright brothers' claim to priority if they wanted the original replica. the Smithsonian, "an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge". why sign a secret treaty when there is indisputable proof? why not open to science, whatever the results may be? a "secret treaty" that is their understanding of "the increase and diffusion of knowledge"?

History channel has own version!

5 hours ago, turbomax said:

you mean 2 years after...

No need to go off on one about this, since for a kick off it wasn't the topic at hand, but more importantly, read what I actually wrote, which was: 'the Wright Bros made their first heavier than air powered flight'

I didn't say anything about theirs being the first one made by anyone ever, which might be the case or not, but either way, my comment wasn't about that, it was about the Ju52 and Hugo Junkers getting interested in aviation.

2 minutes ago, Chock said:

I actually wrote, which was: 'the Wright Bros made their first heavier than air powered flight'

yes you said that correctly. I expanded the issue slightly because "their first flight" is commonly misunderstood as "the first powered flight" in this context. the Smithsonian's secret treaty with the Wright brothers is an unprecedented case of an anti-scientific attitude of an institute that takes pride in "the increase and diffusion of knowledge"

6 minutes ago, turbomax said:

yes you said that correctly. I expanded the issue slightly because "their first flight" is commonly misunderstood as "the first powered flight" in this context. the Smithsonian's secret treaty with the Wright brothers is an unprecedented case of an anti-scientific attitude of an institute that takes pride in "the increase and diffusion of knowledge"

Well it's not really a 'secret treaty' if people know about it and always have known about it, since it was never actually 'secret' at all, just something which wasn't particularly well publicised.

25 minutes ago, Chock said:

Well it's not really a 'secret treaty' if people know about it and always have known about it, since it was never actually 'secret' at all, just something which wasn't particularly well publicised.

not secret if released after "only" 65 years?

"people know about it and always have known about it"

you obviously as the only one knew it, the public learnt about the secret treaty only 65 years later, in 2013:

Wed, Apr 03, 2013

 Smithsonian Releases Wright Brothers Contract
Document Guarantees That Wright Flyer Would Always Be Labeled 'First In Flight'

Amidst the long-simmering controversy about whether the Wright Brothers were actually the first to fly a heavier-than-air powered airplane, the Smithsonian Institution has for the first time publicly released the contract it signed in 1948 that states: "Neither the Smithsonian Institution or its successors nor any museum or other agency, bureau, or facilities administered for the United States of America by the Smithsonian Institution or its successors, shall publish or permit to be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any aircraft model or design of earlier date than the Wright Aeroplane of 1903, claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under it own power in controlled flight.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=a6b8b8dc-83c8-4435-8297-b2efcb4a3bab

 

Edited September 9, 20214 yr by turbomax

4 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

Good point. Me too. Eye witness report regardless of how many times it's repeated doesn't make it so.

Because what is truth? There are 4 kinds.

1. Hearsay - weakest truth 
2. Empirical - based on personal sense experience
3. Deduced - logical eg. math, the sum is always greater than it's part. 
4. Real - all of the above.

 

 

There is also the new post-modern/deconstruction sort of Jacques Derrida based truth common in modern politics which basically translates to the "the truth is what I believe it to be" . 

Though of course Derrida was talking about how the meaning of literature and art must take into account (or is even entirely derived from) the reader/viewer and was not really claiming physical facts about the real world can change based on the political views of the individual.

 

4 minutes ago, turbomax said:

not secret if released after "only" 65 years?

"people know about it and always have known about it"

you obviously as the only one knew it, the public learnt about the secret treaty only 65 years later, in 2013:

Wed, Apr 03, 2013

 Smithsonian Releases Wright Brothers Contract
Document Guarantees That Wright Flyer Would Always Be Labeled 'First In Flight'

Amidst the long-simmering controversy about whether the Wright Brothers were actually the first to fly a heavier-than-air powered airplane, the Smithsonian Institution has for the first time publicly released the contract it signed in 1948 that states: "Neither the Smithsonian Institution or its successors nor any museum or other agency, bureau, or facilities administered for the United States of America by the Smithsonian Institution or its successors, shall publish or permit to be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any aircraft model or design of earlier date than the Wright Aeroplane of 1903, claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under it own power in controlled flight.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=a6b8b8dc-83c8-4435-8297-b2efcb4a3bab

 

Nope. You are misinterpreting this information. Regardless of whether or not the US Smithsonian Institute 'released' their copy of the agreement, this does not mean they did not release the information on that document, and even if they didn't, what is referenced in your link of what they 'released', is their copy of an agreement between them and the Science Museum in London covering the transfer of the Wright Flyer to their museum from the care of the London Science Museum, where this contract was no secret at all, since the Science Museum in London is a publicly-funded establishment, wherein it has to publish the details of anything it does.

This is what happens when you A) regard Fox News as a reliable source of information and B) don't pay attention to what they actually referenced either, which was the release of the document, not the release of the information on the document, which didn't need 'releasing' at all, since it wasn't a secret in the first place. 

I was referring to the contract between the Smithsonian and the Wright family, not the transfer contract from the London science museum back to the USA.

Edited September 9, 20214 yr by turbomax