I don't consider myself an expert on this topic, but from my reading, some of what you're saying is correct, and some of it is not.
My disagreement is not at all about whether the Wrights had their own insights and strengths or can justly claim priority to have the first human carrying powered and controlled aircraft. I know it can seem like I'm doing them down in some way, but I do not intend to. So, I recognise their advances and their focus on building their vision of an actually useful flying machine.
Where I disagree is when you say things like:
> Keep in mind that the Wrights built a series of gliders, each one was to test a particular aspect of the flight problem.
as if that were unusual. Almost all of the names I mentioned in my previous comment did exactly that too.
We probably disagree on precisely which of the Wright's achievements meant a significant advance on state of the art (some of the advances you mention were being systematically investigated by others too), but my main point of departure from you is really just the apparent characterisation of the Wrights contemporaries as not following the scientific method and approaching the whole problem in a haphazard and isolated way.
My own impression of those days is of a small group of pioneers that were in touch with each other, building on each others advances, and with incomplete but growing knowledge of the science behind what they were trying to do.
> my main point of departure from you is really just the apparent characterisation of the Wrights contemporaries as not following the scientific method and approaching the whole problem in a haphazard and isolated way.
It's not about the scientific method. It's about a directed research and development program. I just don't see any of the other experimenters doing that. I didn't say they were isolated, either, but they were haphazard. They tried to leap right from an unproven theory to a working airplane. Their airplanes were not even close to flying, which is evidence of their haphazardness. The other evidence is the lack of a trail of documentation - notes, calculations, drawings, etc. Disorganized and haphazard, absolutely.
Which one of them identified control as a crucial element of flight, for example? Which one did the calculations to show they had enough power? Heck, which ones did the calculations to make the airframe strong enough? The Langley Aerodrome fell apart on launch, Pilcher died because his glider broke up in flight. Many copied bird designs rather than trying to figure out what the right shape should be.
An airplane is not like inventing a car, where you can just attach an engine to some wheels, eyeball the whole thing, and it'll work. You have to do the math and the engineering. Eyeballing something that looks like a bird and sticking an engine on it will NEVER WORK.
> with incomplete but growing knowledge of the science behind what they were trying to do.
One of them would have eventually succeeded, just like the Japanese eventually figured out how to make a Samurai sword after centuries of trial and error, but no knowledge of metallurgy.
And that is why the Wrights were different.
You can see the Wrights' notebooks in the Smithsonian. Take a look at that, and you'll see they are not mere bicycle mechanics. We still have the 1903 Flyer, too, and people have built exacting replicas of it - that fly, and fly the way the Wrights described how it flew.
The only rival with some documentation is the Aerodrome, and we know it does not fly for many reasons. The other rivals left next to nothing behind, and nobody has successfully gotten a replica (built from guesswork) to fly at all.
My disagreement is not at all about whether the Wrights had their own insights and strengths or can justly claim priority to have the first human carrying powered and controlled aircraft. I know it can seem like I'm doing them down in some way, but I do not intend to. So, I recognise their advances and their focus on building their vision of an actually useful flying machine.
Where I disagree is when you say things like:
> Keep in mind that the Wrights built a series of gliders, each one was to test a particular aspect of the flight problem.
as if that were unusual. Almost all of the names I mentioned in my previous comment did exactly that too.
We probably disagree on precisely which of the Wright's achievements meant a significant advance on state of the art (some of the advances you mention were being systematically investigated by others too), but my main point of departure from you is really just the apparent characterisation of the Wrights contemporaries as not following the scientific method and approaching the whole problem in a haphazard and isolated way.
My own impression of those days is of a small group of pioneers that were in touch with each other, building on each others advances, and with incomplete but growing knowledge of the science behind what they were trying to do.