11–20 of 24 posts
>They did several things differently, from doing their own research to building wind tunnels to validate their data and eliminate guesswork. >Sometimes the non-glamorous lab work is absolutely crucial to the success of a project. - Wilbur Wright >Since the 18th century, engineers had been using Smeaton’s coefficient to calculate the density of air. After running over 50 simulations using their wind tunnels, the broth…
>They did several things differently, from doing their own research to building wind tunnels to validate their data and eliminate guesswork. >Sometimes the non-glamorous lab work is absolutely crucial to the success of a project. - Wilbur Wright >Since the 18th century, engineers had been using Smeaton’s coefficient to calculate the density of air. After running over 50 simulations using their wind tunnels, the broth…
(also, I’m aware meta comments are frowned upon, but your comment would read exactly the same without the quotes, they are a bit of an eyesore on mobile and not necessary)
> However, do you know why two flight enthusiasts from Dayton, Ohio succeeded? This just makes me think that Alberto Santos-Dumont also "invented" heavier-than-air flight, only 3 years later and it was better. Wouldn't we still have the same flying ability if the Wrights never pursued flying? Previous discussion on Santos-Dumont: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9542480
>They did several things differently, from doing their own research to building wind tunnels to validate their data and eliminate guesswork. >Sometimes the non-glamorous lab work is absolutely crucial to the success of a project. - Wilbur Wright >Since the 18th century, engineers had been using Smeaton’s coefficient to calculate the density of air. After running over 50 simulations using their wind tunnels, the broth…
Yes, it enabled them to not only fail fast, but to fail and live to tell the tale! Much talent and knowledge was lost in the people that died trying to fly before them. It's also amazing to read about the many pilots who died trying to cross the Atlantic before Charles Lindbergh did it. The journey nearly cost him his life as well, and it took some time before such flights were safe enough to routinely attempt. Early…
I hope you're not suggesting that Lindbergh was the first. First non-stop solo flight, yes; but Alcock and Brown flew it 8 years earlier: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/bM5diyl48K/alcock
This was really interesting. I've always viewed the Wrights as "hobbyists" or "tinkerers" - but now I'm going to have to do some research on their lives. If the impression I got from that article is remotely accurate, they were engineers. It seems almost insulting to call them "bicycle makers".
Check out the book The Wright Brothers by David McCullough[1]. You will see that they are anything but tinkerers, but more the founders of aeronautical engineering. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Wright-Brothers-David-McCullough/dp/1...
http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_A...
>They did several things differently, from doing their own research to building wind tunnels to validate their data and eliminate guesswork. >Sometimes the non-glamorous lab work is absolutely crucial to the success of a project. - Wilbur Wright >Since the 18th century, engineers had been using Smeaton’s coefficient to calculate the density of air. After running over 50 simulations using their wind tunnels, the broth…
You just described their contemporary competitor Samuel Pierpont Langley. This is great example to cite when someone complains they don’t have enough GPUs to compete with BigCos.
The real key is advancement in metallurgy and engine technology made a lightweight engine feasible. The correct formula might have taken a couple years off the time frame, but no more. As always you see farther than others by standing on the shoulders of giants.
> However, do you know why two flight enthusiasts from Dayton, Ohio succeeded? This just makes me think that Alberto Santos-Dumont also "invented" heavier-than-air flight, only 3 years later and it was better. Wouldn't we still have the same flying ability if the Wrights never pursued flying? Previous discussion on Santos-Dumont: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9542480
I can't think of any technological advance that was achieved primarily through the effort of a single individual - in retrospect, it seems "obvious" that the fundamental principles had been in place and that it "only" took someone to come along and put them together in a new way. I'm a firearms enthusiast and have spent some time studying the development of small arms. If transported back to the late 18th Century, I…
Hmm, now you've got me curious. I'm not exactly a firearms history scholar, but the earliest automatic firearm I know of (not including civil war era Gatling type guns, which aren't actually automatic) is the Mannlicher 1886, which was also produced as a semi-automatic at the same time. So I was under the impression that we got fully and semi auto firearms at exactly the same time.
This was really interesting. I've always viewed the Wrights as "hobbyists" or "tinkerers" - but now I'm going to have to do some research on their lives. If the impression I got from that article is remotely accurate, they were engineers. It seems almost insulting to call them "bicycle makers".