To Conquer the Air

by James Tobin

  Huffaker did not: WW to OC, 10/18/1901, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 137–38.

  “He is intelligent”: WW to MW, 7/26/1901, FC, WBP, LC.

  “not good for a day’s work”: George Spratt to OC, 10/4/1899.

  “nothing . . . but food and clothing”: Spratt to OC, 10/17/1899, box 45, Chanute papers, LC.

  He considered a future: Spratt’s background and ambitions, Spratt to OC, 12/28/1898, box 45; Spratt to OC, 1/28/1902, box 43, Chanute papers, LC; Spratt to WW, 4/23/1903, GC, WBP, LC.

  “saying if the Lord intended”: Spratt to OC, 10/17/1899, box 45, Chanute papers, LC.

  “something that is a remarkably close second”: Spratt to OC, 1/28/1902, box 43, Chanute papers, LC.

  “To the person who had never attempted”: Testimony of WW, 2/15/1912, reprinted as Appendix G, The Aeronautical Journal, July–September 1916, 119. My reports of the sensations associated with launching and piloting Wright gliders is based on my experiences while assisting the flight experimenter and historian Nick Engler on the Outer Banks in September 2000 and October 2001. Engler’s authentic reproductions of the Wrights’ aircraft, painstakingly created on the basis of years of research, allow one to experience what the Wrights went through down to minute details.

  “Mr. Huffaker remarked”: WW to MW, 7/26/1901, FC, WBP, LC.

  “the very fix”: OW to KW, 7/28/01, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 75.

  Orville took a turn: WW’s diary A, 7/29/01, in McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 76. Wright biographers have said that Orville Wright made no flights at Kitty Hawk until 1902. But the entry for July 29, 1901, in the Chanute-Huffaker diary notes “Orville Wright in the machine” in the fourth glide attempt of the day. Chanute-Huffaker diary, KW’s copy, FC-LC.

  “The balancing of a gliding”: WW, “Some Aeronautical Experiments,” in McFarland, Papers, vol. 1, 101.

  their plan had been simple and effective: Wrights’ understanding of aerodynamic forces and approach to glider design, Peter L. Jakab, Visions of a Flying Machine: The Wright Brothers and the Process of Invention (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1990), 63–82.

  The list of negatives was longer: WW’s Diary A, 7/30/1901, McFarland, Papers 1, 77–78.

  “The Wrights have no high regard”: Chanute-Huffaker diary, 7/29/1901.

  “I took it as a joke”: WW to George A. Spratt, McFarland, Papers, vol. 1, 118–19.

  On August 8 the wind: Chanute-Huffaker diary, entry of 8/11/1901.

  “The control of the machine”: WW, “Some Aeronautical Experiments,” McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 111–12.

  A similar landing sent him tumbling: Huffaker recorded that sharp turns occurred in flights of August 9, though WW did not mention them in his own diary.

  “Upturned wing seems to fall behind”: McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 82.

  “a very unlooked for result”: WW to OC, 8/22/01, Papers, vol. 1, 84.

  “Truth and error were everywhere so intimately mixed”: Testimony of Wilbur Wright, 2/15/1912, reprinted as Appendix G, The Aeronautical Journal, July–September 1916, 103.

  they watched a buzzard sail: Chanute-Huffaker diary, 8/15/1901.

  “He looked rather sheepish.”: WW to George A. Spratt, 9/21/1901, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 118.

  “We doubted that we would ever resume”: Testimony of Wilbur Wright, 2/15/1912, reprinted as Appendix G, The Aeronautical Journal, July–September 1916, 120. Wilbur also recalled his pessimistic prediction of 1901 in a speech to the Aero Club of France in 1908. See McFarland, Papers, vol. 2, 934–35. For Will’s cold, see KW to MW, 8/26/01, Papers, vol. 1, 84.

  “the present status of the work”: I. N. Lewis to SPL, 9/20/1901, box 96, RU 31, SIA.

  “personnel . . . had almost entirely changed”: Charles Manly to SPL, 9/27/1901, box 96, RU 31, SIA.

  The slow schedule was: SPL’s reports on aerodrome to Board of Ordnance and Fortification in fall 1901, draft, SPL to I. N. Lewis, 10/1/1901; “Report of Progress of Aerodromic Work on Account of the Board of Ordnance and Fortification from January 1st, 1899 to October 1, 1901,” box 96, RU 31, SIA.

  He had other sources: Additional funding for aerodrome work after BOF money runs out, AGB to SPL, June 1898, box 131, AGB papers, LC; Robert B. Meyer, Jr., ed., Langley’s Aero Engine of 1903 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971), 107–08.

  Manly tested a new set: Manly’s failed test of water jackets, Meyer, ed., Langley’s Aero Engine of 1903, 107.

  Chapter Five: “The Possibility of Exactness”

  “I think you have performed”: WW to OC, 8/22/1901, OC to WW, 8/23/1901, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 83–84.

  In fact, the old engineer: For Chanute’s failure to understand wing-warping, see Tom D. Crouch, The Bishop’s Boys: A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright (New York: Norton, 1989), 200–201.

  Chanute conveyed the invitation: OC invites WW to speak, OC to WW, 8/29/01, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 91.

  “Will was about to refuse”: KW to MW, 9/3/01, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 92.

  “After your kindness”: WW to OC, 9/2/01, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 92.

  “May they make it”: OC to WW, 9/5/01, WW to OC, 9/6/01, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 93.

  “We don’t hear anything”: KW to MW, 9/3/01, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 92. KW’s full remark was, “We don’t hear anything but flying machine and engine from morning til night.” The engine she referred to was an engine being installed in the back room of the bicycle shop, not an engine for a flying machine.

  “The basis of Professor Newcomb’s character”: William Alvord, “Address of the Retiring President of the Society, in Awarding the Bruce Medal to Professor Simon Newcomb,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 4/2/1898.

  Newcomb posited two: See Bruce, Bell, 431, on the flaw in Newcomb’s reasoning.

  “The first successful flyer”: Simon Newcomb, “Is the Airship Coming?” McClure’s Magazine, September 1901, 432–35.

  “Those who ventured”: Chanute’s introduction, “Some Aeronautical Experiments,” Journal of the Western Society of Engineers, December 1901, reprinted in Jakab and Young, eds., Published Writings, 114.

  He had taken the train: WW before Western Society of Engineers presentation, WW to MW, 10/24/1901; KW to MW, 9/25/1901, FC, WBP, LC.

  “clothes do make the man”: KW to MW, 9/11/1901, FC, WBP, LC.

  “When this one feature has been worked out”: Marvin McFarland said the brothers would have toned down their optimism had the speech been made a few months later, when they realized that important problems—particularly that of propellers—remained to be explored and solved. McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 100n.

  He led the engineers: WW’s September 1901 address to Western Society of Engineers, no text of the spoken address survives. WW edited the speech before it appeared as an article in the Journal of the Western Society of Engineers, December 1901, 489–510, and edited it again for its appearance in the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 1902 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1903), 133–48. Jakab and Young, eds., Published Writings, includes the Smithsonian version of “Some Aeronautical Experiments,” along with Chanute’s introductory remarks. McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 99–118, presents the version that appeared in the Journal of the Western Society of Engineers.

  “His faith in Lilienthal’s tables”: WW to George A. Spratt, 9/21/1901, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 119.

  “I am amused with your apology”: OC to WW, 11/27/1901, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 164.

  “a devilish good paper”: OC to WW, 11/27/1901, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 168.

  Chanute urged Will: OC offers encouragement and financial aid, OC to WW, 10/20/1901, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 139.

  “If we did not feel that the time”: WW to OC, 10/24/1901, McFarland ed., Papers, vol. 1, 142.

  Here Orville voiced: OW’s caution
about publishing claims, Kelly, The Wright Brothers, 73–74.

  “We have been experimenting”: WW to MW, 10/24/1901, FC, WBP, LC.

  Kate found the house: KW in fall 1901, KW to MW, 10/2/1901, FC, WBP, LC.

  “The boys are working every night”: KW to MW, 10/2/1901, 10/12/1901, FC, WBP, LC.

  Above the door: Wrights’ bicycle shop. The description is based largely on documents at the Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village Research Center, including “The Wright Cycle Company Report: Research Guides”; oral history interviews with Ivonette Wright Miller and Harold Miller, 7/6/1984 and 9/17/1989; “Interview with Mae Voris Regarding the Wright Cycle Shop,” 7/19/1984; Susan [Bushouse] to John Wright, 5/8/1984; untitled draft press release (c. 1937); and several typescript reports by museum staff, including “Business at 1127 West Third,” “Equipment History of the First Wright Shop,” and an untitled memorandum, 5/3/1984, by researcher Susan Bushouse. See also nephew Milton Wright’s memories of the shop in Ivonette Wright Miller, Wright Reminiscences, 68. For a detailed history of the building that housed the bicycle shop, see Allan Fletcher, “The Wright Brothers’ Home and Cycle Shop In Greenfield Village,” master’s thesis in museum practice, University of Michigan, 1972. Wright researchers have disagreed over the location of the wind tunnel. Charles Taylor, who worked most closely with them, recalled in 1948 that the Wrights did most of their experimenting in the upstairs rooms; see Taylor’s “as-told-to” article written with Robert S. Ball, “My Story of the Wright Brothers,” Collier’s Weekly, 12/25/1948, reprinted in Jakab and Young, Published Writings, 286. Susan Bushouse Foran, who did thorough research on the Wrights’ shop equipment for a restoration at Greenfield Village in the 1980s, believed the wind tunnel experiments probably were conducted in an upstairs room.

  “We had taken up aeronautics”: WW and OW, “The Wright Brothers Aeroplane,” Century Magazine, September 1908, reprinted in Jakab and Young, eds., Published Writings, 28.

  “a multitude of variations”: WW and OW, “The Wright Brothers Aeroplane,” Century Magazine, September 1908, reprinted in Jakab and Young, Published Writings, 28. The names of both Wrights appeared on this article, but Orville was the actual author.

  It appears that Will: Construction of model wing surfaces for wind tunnel, WW to George A. Spratt, 2/14/1902, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 216; Fred Howard’s Appendix II.C., “Wright Model Aerofoils,” McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 556–72.

  They constructed the balances: For the wind tunnel and balances, see Nick Engler, “Lift and Drift: The Story of the Wright Brothers’ Wind Tunnel” (Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company, 2002), also available at www.wright-brothers.org; the author is indebted to Engler for sharing his extensive knowledge of the wind tunnel tests, based on his reproduction of the tunnel and the lift and drift balances. On the difficulty of keeping the balances assembled, see Crouch, Bishop’s Boys, 224–25. Crouch, who attempted the feat with a replica, said “the slightest jar would dislodge the many pins on which the various parts rested, reducing the device to an assortment of bits and pieces on the tunnel floor. Reassembly was exasperating, something akin to building a house of cards; one slip and the entire edifice collapsed.” Engler reports that the balances become easier to handle with repetition.

  “It is perfectly marvelous”: OC to WW, 11/18/1901, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 156.

  “little better than guess-work”: WW and OW, “The Wright Brothers Aeroplane,” Century Magazine, September 1908, reprinted in Jakab and Young, Published Writings, 28.

  “The ‘monumental work’ of a great American”: WW to OC, 11/2/1901, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 148.

  “#12 has the highest dynamic efficiency”: WW to OC, 12/15/1901, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 181.

  With that, the brothers: Ending wind tunnel experiments, WW to George Spratt, 12/15/01, 1/1/02, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 181–82.

  “Of course nothing would give me greater pleasure”: WW to OC, 12/23/1902, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. I, 187.

  The skids occurred: For explanations of the skidding problem and the original design of the 1902 vertical tail, see Peter L. Jakab, Visions of a Flying Machine: The Wright Brothers and the Process of Invention (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1990), 157–59, and Kelly, Wright Brothers, 79–80.

  “The matter of lateral stability”: WW to OC, 2/7/1902, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 212.

  Chapter Six: “A Thousand Glides”

  “It is conceded”: Dayton Daily News coverage, “Modern Flying Machine a Dayton Product,” 1/25/1902.

  “Pigeon Flies”: Alberto Santos-Dumont, My Airships (London: Grant Richards, 1904), 19–20.

  Alberto, then eighteen: Santos-Dumont’s background, education, and early airship flights, Peter Wykeham, Santos-Dumont: A Study in Obsession (London: Putnam, 1962). For a good summary, see Douglas Botting, The Giant Airships (Alexandria, Va.: Time-Life Books, 1980), 22–29.

  “ ‘Man flies!’ old fellow!”: Santos-Dumont, My Airships, 20–21.

  Santos-Dumont was an honored guest: Roosevelt and Santos-Dumont, “President Would Like to Try Flying Machine,” Washington Times, 4/17/1902.

  “The salvation of one’s self”: MW, “The Spiritual Warfare,” Religious Telescope, 6/18/1873, quoted in Daryl M. Elliott, “Bishop Milton Wright and the Quest for a Christian America,” Ph.D. dissertation, Drew University, 1992, 170.

  “There is something rotten”: WW to MW, 6/2/1897, quoted in Elliot, “Bishop Milton Wright . . . ,” 285.

  The bishop expected: MW and Millard Keiter controversy, Elliot, “Bishop Milton Wright . . . ,” 282–96.

  “inconceivable, incomprehensible and incredible”: WW to Reuchlin Wright, 5/20/1902, FC, WBP, LC.

  “Some members must have felt”: WW to MW, 2/15/1902, FC, WBP, LC.

  “Feel loss of sleep”: Milton Wright, Diaries, 1857–1917 (Dayton, Ohio: Wright State University Libraries, 1999), entry of 5/30/1902, 569. See also entries of 4/4/1902 and 4/5/1902, and MW to KW, 9/3/1902, FC, WBP, LC.

  “imperious”: Corydon L. Wood, “Bishop Milton Wright,” The Christian Conservator, 5/16/1917.

  “esteems itself”: Halleck Floyd, “The Ego,” The Christian Conservator, 5/24/1904, quoted in Elliot, “Bishop Milton Wright . . .” 306. For Milton’s awareness of personal criticisms leveled against him, see also MW to WW, 8/28/1902, FC, WBP, LC.

  “Will and Orv seem to think”: KW to MW, 8/20/1902.

  “Not one of that crowd”: KW to MW, 9/3/1902, FC, WBP, LC.

  “my chief regret”: WW to MW, 2/15/1902, FC, WBP, LC.

  “attending to some matters”: WW to OC, 5/16/1902, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 233.

  “If we go to Kitty Hawk”: WW to OC, 5/29/1902, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 233.

  He came to Dayton: Will’s instructions to Chanute, WW to OC, 7/9/1902, McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, 237.

  “When my father and myself”: WW, “The Church Trial at Huntington,” pamphlet, United Brethren Historical Center, Huntington College.

  “Will spins the sewing machine”: KW to MW, 8/20/1902, FC, WBP, LC.

  They scissored the fabric: Parts and process in building the 1902 Wright glider, author’s interview with Wright reconstructionist Nick Engler, January 2002; Nick Engler, “Building the 1902 Wright Glider,” website of the Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company, www.first-to-fly.com.

  “They really ought to get away”: KW to MW, 8/20/1902, FC, WBP, LC.

  “I am sorry that Will”: KW to MW, 8/31/1902, FC, WBP, LC.

  “I always feel”: KW to MW, 8/26/1902, 9/2/1902, FC, WBP, LC.

  “Dad seems worried”: KW to WW and OW, 9/4/02, FC, WBP, LC.

  “the success or failure of the first flight”: Manly to SPL, 1/1/1901, SPL wastebook entry, NASM archive, SI.

  “gave an appearance of grace and strength”: Langley Memoir on Mechanical Flight, pt. 2, 186.

  “If one is building bridges”: Langley Memoir on Mechanical Flight, pt. 2, 18
6.

  “Everything in the work has got to be so light”: SPL, “The ‘Flying-Machine,’” McClure’s Magazine, June 1897, 654.

  “To determine more accurately”: Langley Memoir on Mechanical Flight, pt. 2, 197.

  “Mr. Manly adds that the entire vibration”: SPL wastebook entry, 5/12/1901, NASM archive, SI.

  “Although this wing”: Langley Memoir on Mechanical Flight, pt. 2, 200.

  “Although an engine may develop sufficient power”: SPL, “Experiments With the Langley Aerodrome,” Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1904 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1905), 117.

  “Great difficulties . . . were experienced”: Langley Memoir on Mechanical Flight, pt. 2, 254.

  “These engines were to be of nearly double the power”: SPL, “Experiments With the Langley Aerodrome,” Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1904 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1905), 117.

  “the work lengthened out”: Manly wastebook entry, 1/1/1901, NASM archive, SI.

  Once that was achieved: Langley Memoir on Mechanical Flight, pt. 2, 217.

  “Considering the experience of ten years”: SPL’s “Memoranda of Captain Lewis, given on his visit of April 26, when he went through the shops,” SPL wastebook entry, 4/26/1902, NASM archive, SI.

  “first one part and then another”: Charles Manly to SPL, 8/15/1902, Meyer, ed., Langley’s Aero Engine of 1903, 120.

  “The injury to the propeller”: SPL to Manly, 8/18/1902, Meyer, ed., Langley’s Aero Engine of 1903, 120–21.

  He had often thought: SPL’s ideas about the possibility of rocket engines for aircraft, Russell J. Parkinson, “Doctor Langley’s Paradox: Two Letters Suggesting the Development of Rockets,” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 140, no. 3, 8/31/1960.

  “I do not expect”: OC to SPL, 4/26/1902, box 18, RU 31, SIA.

  “my brother and myself”: WW to OC, 7/9/1902, Papers, vol. 1, 237–38.

  “jealous disposition”: WW to OC, 9/5/1902, Papers, vol. 1, 247–48.

  “let him rebuild”: OC to SPL, 10/21/1902, quoted in McFarland, ed., Papers, vol. 1, p. 274n.