Claims to the first powered flight

The du Temple monoplane

Some notable powered hops were made before the problem of powered flight was finally solved.

In 1874 Félix du Temple built a steam-powered aeroplane which took off from a ramp with a sailor on board and remained airborne for a short distance. This has sometimes been claimed as the first powered flight in history but the claim is generally rejected because takeoff was gravity-assisted and flight was not sustained. It is however credited as the first powered takeoff in history.[2][3]

Ten years later in 1884 the Russian Alexander Mozhaysky achieved similar success, launching his craft from a ramp and remaining airborne for 30 m (98 ft). The claim that this was a sustained flight has not been taken seriously outside Russia.[2]

Clément Ader's Éole of 1890 was a bat-winged tractor monoplane which achieved a brief, uncontrolled hop, becoming the first heavier-than-air machine in history to take off from level ground under its own power.[2] However his hop is not regarded as true flight because it was neither sustained nor controlled. Ader would later make a controversial claim of a more extended flight.[2]

The 1901 Drachenflieger of Wilhelm Kress was a triple-tandem winged floatplane. It had been inspired by Samuel Pierpoint Langley's experiments and, like his later designs, was powered by an internal combustion engine. It demonstrated good control when taxiing, but was too underpowered and failed to take off.[2]

A replica of the Ezekiel Airship, which is claimed to have flown in Pittsburg, Texas, in 1902, although there is no physical evidence to support such a claim.[4]

Few of the claims to powered flight were widely accepted, or even made, at the time the events took place. Both the Wrights and Whitehead suffered in their early years from a lack of general recognition, while neither Ader nor Langley made any claim in the years immediately following their work. Indeed, Langley died in 1906 without ever making any claim of success.

The pioneer Octave Chanute promoted the Wrights' work, some of which he witnessed, in the United States and Europe. The brothers began to gain recognition in Britain, where Colonel John Edward Capper was taking charge of Army aeronautical work. On a visit to the U.S. in 1904 Capper befriended the Wrights and subsequently helped foster their early recognition. He also visited Langley, who openly discussed his failure with Capper.[5]

In 1906 the U.S. Army rejected a proposal from the Wrights on the basis that their machine's ability to fly had not been demonstrated. Thus, when Alberto Santos-Dumont made a brief flight that year in his 14-bis aeroplane, there was no acknowledged antecedent and he was acclaimed in France and elsewhere as the first to fly. Ader responded by claiming that he had flown in his Avion III back in 1897.[2]

Santos-Dumont's 1906 claim to flight has never been seriously disputed, although few authorities credit his as the first, while some have questioned the effectiveness of his controls.[6]

In 1908 the Wrights embarked on a series of demonstrations with their by now much improved Flyers, Orville in America and Wilbur in Europe.

Ader's claim was debunked in 1910, when the official report on his work was finally published.[2]

In the United States, the Smithsonian Institution, and primarily its then-Secretary Charles Walcott, refused to give credit to the Wright Brothers for the first powered, controlled flight of an aircraft. Instead, they honored the former Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Pierpont Langley, whose 1903 tests of his Aerodrome on the Potomac were not successful. In 1914, Glenn Curtiss had recently exhausted the appeal process in a patent infringement legal battle with the Wrights. Curtiss sought to prove Langley's machine, which failed piloted tests nine days before the Wrights' successful flight in 1903, capable of controlled, piloted flight in an attempt to invalidate the Wrights' wide-sweeping patents.

The Aerodrome was removed from exhibit at the Smithsonian and prepared for flight at Keuka Lake, New York. Curtiss called the preparations "restoration" claiming that the only addition to the design was pontoons to support testing on the lake but critics including patent attorney Griffith Brewer called them alterations of the original design. Curtiss flew the modified Aerodrome, hopping a few feet off the surface of the lake for 5 seconds at a time.[7]

They used this as the basis for a claim that the Aerodrome was the first aeroplane "capable of flight". Orville, the surviving Wright brother, began a long and bitter public relations battle to force it to recognize their claim to primacy, his disgust reaching such a peak that in 1928 he sent the historic Flyer for display in the British Science Museum in London. He eventually succeeded in his battle, in 1942, when the Smithsonian, under a new Secretary Charles Abbot, admitted to Curtiss' modifications and withdrew its claim.[8][9]

Meanwhile, with the publication of a co-authored article and a book by the journalist Stella Randolph, Whitehead had also begun to gain vocal advocates. In 1945 Orville Wright issued a critique of the evidence for Whitehead.[10]

Orville died on January 30, 1948. As part of the Smithsonian's final deal with his executors, the Flyer was returned to the United States and put on display. A clause in the contract required the Smithsonian to claim primacy for the Wrights, on pain of losing the prize exhibit.[11]

Whitehead's advocates have fought an equally bitter battle with the Smithsonian in an attempt to gain recognition, in which the Smithsonian's contract with the Wright estate has been subject to heavy criticism. Although Whitehead's advocates have gained some following, they remain in the minority.[12] [13]

It is generally accepted today that the Wright brothers were the first to make sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flights. Many in Brazil regard Santos-Dumont as the first successful aviator because his craft did not use an external launch system.[14] [15]

Stanley Beach was a friend of Whitehead, sharing a patent application with him in 1905. Beach's father was editor of Scientific American, which was initially sympathetic to Whitehead and included a number of reports of short flights by Whitehead.[16][17][18][19][20] Later, Beach and Whitehead fell out and, now editor of the Scientific American in his turn, Beach denied that Whitehead ever flew.[21]

Whitehead's claims were not taken seriously until two journalists, Stella Randolph and Harvey Phillips, wrote an article in a 1935 edition of Popular Aviation journal. Harvard University economics professor John B. Crane responded with a rebuttal, published in National Aeronautic Magazine in December 1936. The next year Randolph expanded the article, together with additional research, into a book titled Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead. Crane changed his mind in 1938 and suggested that a Congressional investigation should consider the claims. By 1945 Orville Wright was sufficiently concerned about the Whitehead claims that he issued his own rebuttal in US Air Services.[10] Then in 1949 Crane published a new article in Air Affairs magazine that supported Whitehead.

Following a chance discovery in 1963, reserve U.S. Air Force major William O'Dwyer was asked to research Whitehead's claims. He became convinced that Whitehead did fly and contributed research material to a second book by Stella Randolph, The Story of Gustave Whitehead, Before the Wrights Flew, published in 1966.[22][23]

O'Dwyer and Randolph co-authored another book, History by Contract, published in 1978. The book criticised the Smithsonian Institution for its contracted obligation to credit only the 1903 Wright Flyer for the first powered controlled flight, claiming that it created a conflict of interest and had been kept secret. The Smithsonian defended itself vigorously.

On March 8, 2013, the aviation annual Jane's All the World's Aircraft published an editorial by Paul Jackson endorsing the Whitehead claim.[24] Jackson's editorial drew heavily upon information provided by aviation researcher John Brown, whom he complimented for his work. Brown had begun researching Whitehead's aircraft while working as a contractor for the Smithsonian. Jane's corporate owner later distanced itself from the editorial, stating it contained the views of the editor, not the publisher.[25][26]

Brown analysed a vintage photograph of an early indoor aeronautical exhibition, claiming that an even earlier photograph visible on the wall showed the Whitehead No. 21 aircraft in powered flight. Jackson's editorial did not mention the claim, and two weeks after its publication he stated to the press that the image was not significant to the claim of Whitehead's flight, remarking, "And that entirely spurious 'Where's the photograph?' argument." Aviation historian Carroll Gray subsequently identified the photo seen on the wall "beyond any reasonable doubt" as a glider built and displayed in California by aviation pioneer John J. Montgomery.[27]

Responding to the renewed controversy, Tom Crouch, a senior curator at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, formally acknowledged the Wright contract, saying that it had never been a secret.[11] He also stated;

I can only hope that, should persuasive evidence for a prior flight be presented, my colleagues and I would have the courage and the honesty to admit the new evidence and risk the loss of the Wright Flyer.

— Tom Crouch, The Wright-Smithsonian Contract, [11]

Scientific American published a rebuttal of the Whitehead claims written by its senior copy editor Daniel C. Schlenoff, who asserted, regarding the Bridgeport Herald report, that "The consensus on the article is that it was an interesting work of fiction."[28]

Thirty-eight air historians and journalists also responded to the revived controversy with a "Statement Regarding The Gustave Whitehead Claims of Flight", rejecting the evidence supporting the claims and noting that, "When it comes to the case of Gustave Whitehead, the decision must remain, not proven."[29]

Some ten years later in 1914 Glenn Curtiss modified the Aerodrome and flew it a few hundred feet, as part of his attempt to fight a patent owned by the Wright brothers, and as an effort by the Smithsonian to rescue Langley's aeronautical reputation. The Curtiss flights emboldened the Smithsonian to display the Aerodrome in its museum as "the first man-carrying aeroplane in the history of the world capable of sustained free flight". Fred Howard, extensively documenting the controversy, wrote: "It was a lie pure and simple, but it bore the imprimatur of the venerable Smithsonian and over the years would find its way into magazines, history books, and encyclopedias, much to the annoyance of those familiar with the facts."[30]

The Smithsonian's action triggered a decades-long feud with the surviving Wright brother, Orville. It was not until 1942 that the Smithsonian finally relented, publishing the Aerodrome modifications made by Curtiss and recanting misleading statements it had made about the 1914 tests.[9]

Following the Curtiss experiments with the Langley Aerodrome in 1914, surviving Wright brother Orville began a long and bitter campaign against the Smithsonian to gain recognition. His disgust reached such a peak in 1928 that he sent the historic Flyer for display in the British Science Museum in London.[37] It was not until 1942 that the Smithsonian finally relented, at last retracting its claims for Langley and acknowledging the Wrights' place in history.[9]

Orville died on January 30, 1948. The Flyer – delayed by the war and an arrangement for a copy to be made – was returned to its native America and put on display in the Smithsonian. A clause in the contract required the Smithsonian to claim primacy for the Wrights, at risk of losing their newly acquired prize exhibit. The Smithsonian has honoured its contract ever since and continues to support the Wrights' claim.[11]

Richard Pearse of New Zealand is credited by some in his country with making the first powered airplane flight on 31 March 1903.[40] He did not claim the feat himself and gave ambiguous information about the chronology of his work.[40][41] Biographer Geoffrey Rodliffe wrote, "no responsible researcher has ever claimed that he achieved fully controlled flight before the Wright brothers, or indeed at any time".[42]

Karl Jatho of Germany is generally credited with making powered airborne hops in Hanover between August and November 1903.[43] He claimed a hop of 18 m (59 ft) about 1 m (3 ft) high on August 18, 1903, and several more hops or short flights by November 1903 for distances up to 60 m (197 ft) at 3 m (10 ft) height.[44] His aircraft made takeoffs from level ground. In Germany some enthusiasts credit him with making the first airplane flight.[44] Sources differ whether his aircraft was controlled.[43][45]

Traian Vuia is credited with a powered hop of 11 m (36 ft) on March 18, 1906, and he claimed additional powered takeoffs in August.[46][47] His design—a monoplane with a tractor propeller—is recognized as first to show that a heavier-than-air machine could take off on wheels.[48] Romanian sources give him credit as first to take off and fly using his machine's "own self provided energy" and no "external support"—references to not using a rail or catapult, as the Wright brothers had done.[49][50] Santos-Dumont was part of the audience at the March 1906 event.[51]

Jacob Ellehammer made a tethered powered hop of about 138 ft (42 m) on 12 September 1906. This has been claimed as a flight. Ellehammer's attempt was not officially observed, whereas Santos-Dumont's, only a few weeks later, was observed and has been given primacy.[1]

• Angelucci, E. and Marticardi, P.; World Aircraft: Origins-World War 1, Sampson Low 1977.
• Gibbs-Smith, C.; "Hops and Flights: A Roll Call of Early Powered Take-offs", Flight, Volume 75, Issue 2619, 3 April 1959, Pages 468,469,470.
• Walker, P.; Early Aviation at Farnborough Volume II: The First Aeroplanes, Macdonald 1974.
• Wragg, D.; Flight Before Flying, Osprey 1974.