细节
WRIGHT, ORVILLE. Typed letter signed in full to Lester D. Gardner of the Gardner, Moffat Co., Dayton, Ohio, 31 October l921. Two pages, 4to, single-spaced.
ON LANGLEY AND LILIENTHAL, WHO INFLUENCED "MY BROTHER AND ME IN TAKING UP SERIOUSLY THE PROBLEM OF FLIGHT"
A fine, richly detailed scientific letter regarding the early aerodynamic experiments and theories of Samuel Pierpont Langley (l834-l906) and Otto Lilienthal (1848-l896), and their influence on the Wright's. Regarding "this Brewer paper," Wright is reluctant to be drawn into controversy, but "I understand that Walcott, Zahm and Manly sent replies... not received until a day or two after the reading of the paper. I do not know what was in the replies, although I understand from a cable I have received that that no contradiction has been made of the changes enumerated by Brewer in his paper; but that the disagreement seems to be over the conclusions reached.
"Walcott told me at the time of the National Advisory Committee meeting last Spring, that he had never known of these changes excepting some slight changes made necessary for the attachment of the pontoons. If when I get his reply I find that after knowing these changes he still intends to carry on the same kind of propoganda, which he has been doing since l914, it may be necessary for me to come out with a statement showing exactly what our relations with Langley were, and just how much we were indebted to him. I have always hesitated to do this as some might think it was an attack upon Langley. Langley was an honorable man and never would have countenanced any changes in his machine. He would have required that it be tested exactly as it was in l903 or not at all. [In late l903, Langley's prototype of a heavier-than-air machine, had failed in two trials, although earlier small models had flown successfully.]
"Wilbur and I admired him for his courage in connecting his name with a subject [motor-powered flight] at that time in bad repute with all men of science. Langley already had a great reputation as a scientist in other lines. He had everything to lose and little to gain....A great many people have been led to attribute an importance to Langley's scientific work which it did not possess. Langley's writing table experiments were all upon plane surfaces, and his measurements only confirmed tables of air pressure already in existence. Unfortunately these tables were not correct....[He] considered 'The Langley Law' as the important result of all his scientific work. Yet this law was probably the greatest error he had fallen into.....
"In l9l0 when the Langley Memorial Tablet was being prepared to be placed in the entrance hall of the Smithsonian, it was proposed to put this 'Langley Law' on the tablet as his chief claim to remembrance. Walcott asked for our opinion...Wilbur told him that he considered it unwise and unfair to specially rest Langley's reputation in aerodynamics on the so-called 'Langley Law', as that did not represent his best work. Langley's experiments with models [beginning in the l890's] had gone farther than those of any others, and had a good deal to do in influencing my brother and me in taking up seriously the problem of flight. [In l896, Langley's Model no.5 had achieved a flight of 3,000 feet on the Potomac River; Model no.6 had flown 4200 feet, the first successful mechanically-powered lighter than airflights, although no pilot was carried.]
"The scientific work of Liliienthal was far ahead of that of Langley, and Wilbur and I have always felt that we were many times more indebted to Lilienthal than we were to Langley. Lilienthal's work was on curved surfaces and was published several years before Langley's work on plane surfaces appeared. I do not like to appear in this controversy, but it may be that it will become necessary...."
ON LANGLEY AND LILIENTHAL, WHO INFLUENCED "MY BROTHER AND ME IN TAKING UP SERIOUSLY THE PROBLEM OF FLIGHT"
A fine, richly detailed scientific letter regarding the early aerodynamic experiments and theories of Samuel Pierpont Langley (l834-l906) and Otto Lilienthal (1848-l896), and their influence on the Wright's. Regarding "this Brewer paper," Wright is reluctant to be drawn into controversy, but "I understand that Walcott, Zahm and Manly sent replies... not received until a day or two after the reading of the paper. I do not know what was in the replies, although I understand from a cable I have received that that no contradiction has been made of the changes enumerated by Brewer in his paper; but that the disagreement seems to be over the conclusions reached.
"Walcott told me at the time of the National Advisory Committee meeting last Spring, that he had never known of these changes excepting some slight changes made necessary for the attachment of the pontoons. If when I get his reply I find that after knowing these changes he still intends to carry on the same kind of propoganda, which he has been doing since l914, it may be necessary for me to come out with a statement showing exactly what our relations with Langley were, and just how much we were indebted to him. I have always hesitated to do this as some might think it was an attack upon Langley. Langley was an honorable man and never would have countenanced any changes in his machine. He would have required that it be tested exactly as it was in l903 or not at all. [In late l903, Langley's prototype of a heavier-than-air machine, had failed in two trials, although earlier small models had flown successfully.]
"Wilbur and I admired him for his courage in connecting his name with a subject [motor-powered flight] at that time in bad repute with all men of science. Langley already had a great reputation as a scientist in other lines. He had everything to lose and little to gain....A great many people have been led to attribute an importance to Langley's scientific work which it did not possess. Langley's writing table experiments were all upon plane surfaces, and his measurements only confirmed tables of air pressure already in existence. Unfortunately these tables were not correct....[He] considered 'The Langley Law' as the important result of all his scientific work. Yet this law was probably the greatest error he had fallen into.....
"In l9l0 when the Langley Memorial Tablet was being prepared to be placed in the entrance hall of the Smithsonian, it was proposed to put this 'Langley Law' on the tablet as his chief claim to remembrance. Walcott asked for our opinion...Wilbur told him that he considered it unwise and unfair to specially rest Langley's reputation in aerodynamics on the so-called 'Langley Law', as that did not represent his best work. Langley's experiments with models [beginning in the l890's] had gone farther than those of any others, and had a good deal to do in influencing my brother and me in taking up seriously the problem of flight. [In l896, Langley's Model no.5 had achieved a flight of 3,000 feet on the Potomac River; Model no.6 had flown 4200 feet, the first successful mechanically-powered lighter than airflights, although no pilot was carried.]
"The scientific work of Liliienthal was far ahead of that of Langley, and Wilbur and I have always felt that we were many times more indebted to Lilienthal than we were to Langley. Lilienthal's work was on curved surfaces and was published several years before Langley's work on plane surfaces appeared. I do not like to appear in this controversy, but it may be that it will become necessary...."