Santos Dumont, Wright Brothers, and Propeller Basics
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- This started off as a video on propellers, then took a turn towards early aviation history and myth busting.
In regards to propellers, I'll cover blade angle, pitch, aspect ratio, efficiency and more.
In regards to history I cover some myths about early aviation and the efforts of the Louis Bleriot, Santos Dumont, the Wright brothers and more.
Before anyone says anything, yes I know the difference between a blimp and a dirigible. However many of Dumont's designs including No. 9 are described as both blimps and Dirigibles and I couldn't find the plans to them, so I used both terms. Also, there is a middle ground in which some airships used blimps with a keel beam.
Please support the channel:
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplane...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
Note: This is the second upload of this video. The first was visible to Patreons only. I made some changes to the public version based on Patreon suggestions. The primary changes were to subtitles, which are now easier to read and on screen a bit longer before fading out.
I want to clarify that I'm a fan of Santos Dumont, and think he should be honored and remembered for what he did. He was a brave, intelligent, and noble man. He solved many problems regarding use of gasoline piston engines on aircraft which caused the French to jump ahead of the world in aircraft engine technology in the early 1900s. He also gave France a head start in airframe building skills with his airships, along with his 14Bis and 14Bis-2. So once they knew the secrets of the Wrights they could jump into building airplanes with both feet and get the lead on the rest of the world. Just because I don't think he invented the airplane doesn't mean that I don't think he should be remembered as a hero.
People also forget the Wrights invented the wind tunnel and had to correct lots of data regarding airfoils. People simply fail to realize just how much work the Wrights did to advance aviation. Airfoils, wind tunnels, propellers, engines, 3 axis control, etc. Their attempts at secrecy and trying to patent all of aviation was a mistake afterwards though. I've read the Wright Flyer was capable of crossing the Mediterranean before Bleriot even crossed the English channel for example. And Wilbur had been offered $5000 to cross the English Channel as well, but refused claiming it was a wreckless stunt. Wish he'd just asked if one of his pilots was interested. The Wright Flyer was superior to so many other designs for many years.
But I agree none the less, others did contribute to the advancement of aviation and should be recognized for that. I myself didn't know that much about Dumont prior to this video. What is interesting to me is that many people, Wrights included, had successfully flown heavier than air gliders for many years prior to 1903, but it was the "powered" heavier than air flight that was important. With multiple people achieving glider flight, it baffles me that so many others didn't seem to pay attention to the gliders, and what enabled them to fly. Seems many "hop" designs didn't pay much attention to the gliders. Considering this was a key part of the Wrights approach, I wonder if anyone else would have gotten closer than they did had they paid attention to those a bit more. But, many gliders had little to no control either, so perhaps not. The Wrights just asked the correct questions that others never did, as stated in the video.
@@SoloRenegade Consider what might have happened had Lilienthal not crashed. He _might_ have beaten them by a whisker, but I have a gut feeling that he would have been an empirical hero rather than a methodical one.
Well stated.
Greg : "I'm a fan of Santos Dumont"
You mean you are the propeller?
@@SoloRenegade
The Wrights didn’t simply invent the airplane. They, if not invented, _codified_ Aeronautical engineering
Taking your personal airship out on dates, and then taking the ladies out to breakfast you say?
Best use ever of a dirigible indeed!
Reid, we are on the same page.
Dude sure was a baller...
I hate to put you guys off, but Dummont was more or less assexual. He had only one known crush in his entire life, and if took a lady out in his dirigible, she was more than probably a nice company over coffee and was safely delivered back home the next day. Untouched lol.
I loved the video, BTW ☺️
Greg, I thought it was amazing of you to actually take the time and effort to respond to all of those things, but sadly, Dummont is something like a revered figure IN Brazil, mostly due to the fact that the schools teach us that he was the actual inventor of the heavier-than-air machine we all come to know and love as the airplane.
And sadly this trend will go on into the foreseeable future. They even teach us THAT Dummont invented the worst watch with Cartier, something which had already existed for some time.
I grant you that he was indeed a visionary for his own time, had wonderful ideas about in any number of fields. His house in a city called Petrópolis is nothing short of amazing, and very excentric, but his vision regarding airplanes and the future weren't way too idealistic. A great man, but definitely not the first to fly and some people over here have a bit of a problem understanding that.
I have heard the argument that he was asexual, homosexual or whatever. I'm not buying it. He literally had a blimp docked at his apartment for going on dates. We know he took women on these dates, and even let one fly his blimp. She was probably the first female aviator at that point. Not that I care about his personal life, but the way I see it, the evidence shows that he was quite a lady's man, private about it, but definitely liked the ladys.
Having gone to school in Brazil, I had to learn that Dumont was in fact the "real" inventor of the aeroplane. Getting more and more interested in technology and aviation, that initially set picture obviously began to crumble, the more facts were accumulated.
The discussion about the Wright brothers is only led by people, who don't care to look at the knowledge and engineering performed by the respective individuals. While most "pioneers" relied on guesswork, the Wrights were actually analysing every aspect separately.
Let's remember in fairness to Dumont, he did do a lot, and for some reason he doesn't get credit for his actual achievements.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles which is why propping up Dumont, a great and respectable pioneer in his own sense, against the Wright brothers does him an unfair disservice. Agreed.
Conhecimento e engenharia? Kkkkk
O flyers I que supostamente vôo em 1903 pesava 340Kg, a potência do motor era de apenas 12 HP!
Me explica como eles voaram?
Se hoje sabemos que e impossível voar com esses números!
@@gghhhfghgh yes. It would help your understanding of the Wright brothers' work to look past the numbers of the Wright Flier I and fully appreciate the experimental cataloguing of airfoils and calculation factors.
@@daszieher Ninguém está negando a contribuição Wright para aviação só que após 1908!
Até onde sei aviação da Europa era mais avançada e cresceu independente dos Estados Unidos que era atrasado!
Motivo dos atrasos os Wright processavam qualquer um que tentava voar!
E o primeiro a voar oficialmente nós Estados Unidos foi Glee Curtis!
As a retired Aeronautical Engineer, I have to tell you that your presentations and your analysis are so excellent! I believe that you present a lot of difficult things in a manner that anyone should be able to understand.
There are a few channels on CZcams that are simply marvelous. This is one of 'em. Thank you.
Thanks.
lol, the video isn't even up and I already have thumbs down. I knew this video would upset some people, but I didn't know it would do it just with the title and thumbnail.
There are just those people who really hate propeller basics
Turbines are the future!
The same types who feel that Tesla didn't get enough (all) of the credit have attached themselves to Santos-Dumont. As though he is some sort of underdog, lol. Besides, the Wrights' work was well documented in all the best apiary journals...
Brazilians get triggered just by having the name of the Wright brothers mentioned, that's a sad reality when we get taught at school, TV, government publications and museums that the inventor of the airplane was Santos Dumont. It has become a question of national pride, even at the fifth year of engineering (where we could expect genuine interest in the matter and academic knowledge of fluid mechanics to make sense of all that) I have difficulty finding anybody that recognises any flight by the Wrights as having actually happened (or alternatively they say "a catapult is not a plane")
@@eduardocharlier7560 exactly they are in deep denial
As a student in university for aeronautics and currently studying the origins of flight, I greatly appreciated this presentation! I’ll be forwarding it to my professor.
Forward Gregs' entire library! This man should be in all aeronautical classrooms!
Does long & thin work for you?
If you want to find out about the origins of flight you MUST study the romanian contribution to the aviation: Traian Vuia, Aurel Vlaicu, Henri Coandă...
@@bububaba8727 How should you do this if you don't speak or read Romanian?
From Wikipedia
Traian Vuia was the first to demonstrate that a flying machine could rise into the air by running on wheels on an ordinary road.[2] He is credited with a powered hop of 11 m (36 ft) made on 18 March, 1906, and he later claimed a powered hop of 24 m (79 ft).[3][4] Though unsuccessful in sustained flight, Vuia's invention influenced Louis Blériot in designing monoplanes.
SB The 79 ft. hop would be enough to win the Archdeacon prize. . . . If he had done it before Santos Dumont (also in 1906).
@@stevebett4947 well...wikipedia is on english too :-) The flight of Traian Vuia is on of the best documented historical flight, there are plenty of pictures and articles on the time papers available in internet. Enjoy!
Try this: The Wright brother's flight did not count as they did not exceed Mach 1 on their first flight in accordance with USAF contract specs of the 1950s.
Good satire. I got into an argument with a Brazilian who claimed that Cayley did not fly because he didn't
comply with the 1905 French FAI standards.
I asked how could he comply with a standard that didn't exist in
Cayley made no claim to being the first to fly. It was just an experiment to satisfy his
curiosity. He is said to flown 900 ft. using an 8 hp engine and his chauffeur as his test pilot.
His conclusion was that the technical requirements for manned flight would take time.
He didn't specify a date but other aviation pioneers predicted that manned flight would be achieved as early as 1950. in the 1800's, few believed that manned flying machine was possible.
Cayley correctly predicted (c. 1800) that sustained flight would not occur until a lightweight engine was developed to provide adequate thrust and lift. The Wright brothers acknowledged his importance to the development of aviation.
Sir George Cayley, (1773 - 1857) was an English engineer, inventor, and aviation pioneer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cayley
In your dream stop crying 1 Year old kid is salty 😁
@@mikuhatsune8121 you failed to recognize a very obvious joke someone wrote more than two years ago.
Be more cautious throwing insults around in future.
@@joearnold6881 in your dream stop crying 1 Year old kid is salty 😁
Try this: Wright brothers, 1903: Even a stone launched by a catapult can fly and be photographed during the "flight" in the opinion of the Americans. Flyer Replicas; Can't fly. (Maybe the catapult replicas aren't quite good enough.
Santos Dumont, 1906 Bagatelle field, France: Real flight footage with takeoff carried out using the engine's own thrust and witnessed by a crowd of French citizens and reporters. Replicas of the 14 Bis: Can fly and it has already been proven on video No more comments.
The Wright brothers also built their own wind tunnel and are responsible for the pedals not falling off your bike by working out that you need the thread pitch to be opposite on each pedal.
It took me forever to figure out the pedal thread thing because it seems backwards to me. Wasn't until a few years ago that I saw a youtube video explaining it that I finally understood why.
Dang, I didn't realize they were the ones who figure that out.
That's one of those things that is so simple that you just assume it always existed, but was probably a huge problem until someone actually figured it out.
@@wingracer1614 cars used to have left and right hand threads for wheels too, until nuts with conical or tapered contact faces were used. I wish bicycle pedals used conical faces...
Too bad that wind tunnel was invented 30 years before by Wenham.
I am french and here no one claims Santos Dumont made the first flight. There were claims that Clément Ader was the first but when you see the "Avion 3" there is no way this machine could ever fly.
I didn't even want to get in to the Adler debate. France's claim to fame with aviation is that they were the first country to really embrace it, and as a result, they were the leaders in aviation up until at least WW1 and arguable into the 1920s.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles did I mention your video is awesome? Learned so much.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Majorbett: Greg, are you saying that Ader's
eole and Avion prototypes inspired a generation of would be aeronauts? That is what the Brazilian's claim that Santos-Dumont did.
See this video:
@Johannes914: "No one in France claims Santos Dumont made the first flight."
SB: That may be an overstatement. Do you have any supporting
evidence?
The Brazilian's claim that everyone in France believed this in the early 1900's and the existence of the historical markers, particularly the
monolith at the Bagatelle game field where the first official flight took place in 1906 proves this.
They also believe that everyone in every country other than America agrees with them. When residents of other countries disagree it is because of American propaganda and ignorance.
@Renaldo Borges, @elias lima, @j b, @Jindle Spong
@memorialriflerange,
I am surprised that no one has used modern knowledge to build a lookalike AVION model that did fly. There is a look-alike SD 14 BIS that can fly in circles.
Bleriot built and flew an odd looking airplane in 1909.
Me: I am really tired. Should I go to bed, or get a snack first?
YT: _Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles_
Me: oooooohhhhhhhh nnnnnnnooooooooooooo
Me: **glances at video length**
YT: 50:44
Me: uuuuuuuuggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh
Also me: I should get a big snack. **clicks on thumbnail**
(don't change the the video length btw, I actually like your level of detail)
Its ok to fall asleep. You can see it again.
@@clayz1 Not ok, he will fall behind and we'll all have to wait for him to catch up.🤣
I am left speachless. Thank you for posting this video. I can't even imagine the amount of work you put in to it. Thank you.
The Wright's strength was experimentation with models and developing the science before proceeding fusing theory and experimentation. They were not merely tinkerer inventors but methodical engineers.
An excellent debunking video for those who do not understand the engineering of aviation especially the fluid dynamics and mechanical design. Prior to this people built what looked good without getting quantitative and scalable data as the Wright's did than their predecessors as well as developing knowledge of the material science to actually build the craft.
Brazillian here.
I have to apologize for the comments made before this, which I'm fairly sure were made by my fellow countryman. The fact that "Santos Dummont invented the airplane, not the americans" is widely taught here in primary schools and the idea is also propagated by science museums and such. It has become wrapped up in nationalistic pride. People with very little understanding of the history of aviation will, nonetheless, come rushing out to point out that "Actually, Santos Dummont invented the airplane" like it was an article of faith.
We should totally still celebrate his acomplishments and all that, but I wish people wouldn't let national pride blind them.
His ascend to "Pai da Aviação" as a political and grudge move.
Powerful figures that had no understanding of aviation still refused to recognize the Wrights. Their recognition would meant that Dumont was no longer the first to fly and they used pride as a fuel to their denial.
And "Pai da Aviação" was a powerful icon to instigate patriotism. Patriotism is a very powerful weapon to manipulate the population and politicians could not let it go.
They choose propagated those false information and use it to distract the population away from their thievery and crimes.
Those false information still deeply rooted on our culture to this day.
@@vitor900000 We have our own big lies from politicians but so far they have have lacked an aviation connection.
That hasn't prevented some Brazilian critics of the Wright Brothers to argue that the belief that America
has to be first in all things that prevents them from
recognizing that Santos Dumont was first.
@Greg's Automobiles and Airplanes,
The Wrights were first in 1903. Dumont got into the air in 1906. All three men were brilliant problem solvers. Much credit goes to Dumont for advancing aviation. The same can’t be said of the Wrights as they wanted to patent their research. The Wrights however were the first to understand and then accomplish powered and controlled flight on December 17, 1903. The first attempt was on December 14, 1903, but the weather was not favorable.
@@Machia52612 Why are you shunning the Wright Brothers just because they applied for several patents? They were inventors. That’s how you protect intellectual property that is the result of sometimes a life’s worth of work and dedication.
Wright brothers, 1903: Even a stone launched by a catapult can fly and be photographed during the "flight" in the opinion of the Americans. Flyer Replicas; Can't fly. (Maybe the catapult replicas aren't quite good enough.
Santos Dumont, 1906 Bagatelle field, France: Real flight footage with takeoff carried out using the engine's own thrust and witnessed by a crowd of French citizens and reporters. Replicas of the 14 Bis: Can fly and it has already been proven on video No more comments.
I'm brazilian and I thank you for your research and clarification on this topic. Very enlightening.
It is refreshing to watch a video made by a guy who really knows the depth of the Wright's story. The propeller is often forgotten as a great achievement. You will recall that even Charley Taylor said "I don't think the boys got enough credit for it." Another forgotten aspect of their work was the realization that a person needed to "learn to fly." The Wright's work was not based on trial and error, but when something didn't work they still had to decide if it was the aircraft or the pilot's fault.
That was my problem in high school. My parents would never let me use the blimp.
I had a blimp in high school...Oh, wait...That was my girlfriend. Fortunately, she never let me get to first base with her so I didn't knock her up.
The comedian Gallagher flew a blimp in his shows, when I was in high school
You took the words right out of my mouth. Especially in regards to Dumont. Instead of being recognized for his actual accomplishments, he’s credited as “The guy who was cheated by the Wright Brothers.”
The British are just about as bad, they blame Americans for stealing all their great ideas, so they can serve their egos by claiming they invented everything - despite achieving nearly nothing in aviation since 1939.
I am 71 years old now, but from my earliest memories I remember going to Henry Ford's Greenfield Village and being absolutely enthralled by the Wright Brothers' home and bicycle shop that Ford moved from Dayton to Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan. We would go often because it was just a 15 minute drive and a neighbor worked there and we would often be given free tickets from him. (It was also much more affordable for a working class family back then.) As an adult, when I would see videos or read books about the Wright's work with propellers, airfoil shapes, engines and wing warping it was like - Yeah, I learned that when I was ten. Nowadays, when we go, I am still just enthralled. I am still amazed how these two brothers were able to develop so much and in such a professional manner that would give credit to any modern research and development team. BTW my wife usually has to pull me out of the bicycle shop. "Come on already, we have to go look at the Heinz 57 House across the street."
okay
Louis Bleriot's mustache had a better aspect ratio than his early propellers.
He literally had the solution right under his nose
Well played, monsieur, well played!
Gotta lay down the context first and dispel misinformation before we get to the next juicy video. It's what I love about your videos and work ethic Greg, you are thorough.
Another splendid history and technical video. I look forward very much to Part Two.
Amazing how the Wrights knew that slowing down the prop will get them better efficiency. Even today that's something that seems too counter-intiutive to many.
We see the importance of efficiency but it has two sides.
Some anti-Wright activists claim that the prop was slowed down to the RPM of a ceiling
fan and implied that the thrust was also about the same as a ceiling fan.
Their conclusion, the Wright Flyer could not possibly fly.
Drag would be greater than Thrust.
We know that a spring scale was used to measure static thrust on the 1903 flyer.
Does anyone know how much thrust a ceiling fan can produce?
It uses flat paddle props so it can't be very efficient.
@@mcs699 There are disadvantages to using the 3rd person point of view but it seemed appropriate when commenting on
a debate. Can you make my point better in the first person?
Example of a 3rd person POV:
"A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein
I guess because bicycles are about efficiency. A mountain bike vs a road bike.
@@stevebett4947 Static thrust is meaningless. It is thrust in the air with the proper combination of revolution rate and forward speed that matters.
@@aeromodeller1 The Wrights measured static thrust every time they changed props. If the new prop was not pulling enough on their simple spring gauge it probably would not produce enough thrust to get the 1903 flyer in the air. The Wrights' were minimalists. The engine produced just enough power to compensate for the headwind. The revolution rate was fixed at a very low ( ) RPM and an 8 to 16 hp engine wasn't going to produce much forward speed. Prop efficiency was important and they didn't have a better way to determine if it would be as high as their calculations.
Congrats for such a great work Greg. Good to see Dumonts work appreciated,
Thanks Edvar, I'm glad you see it that way. I am a fan of Dumont, I with he would get credit for the things he did, but nobody every brings that stuff up because they are so focused on trying to say he invented the airplane.
I recall a conversation with an engineer from Wright-Patterson after publication of one of the naive stories claiming that Gustave Whitehead had flown before the Wrights. The man snorted and pointed to the prop in a photo of Whitehead's creation. "It's not an airfoil," the engineer said. "If the prop isn't an airfoil, he didn't fly with it." Pretty much true.
That's a good point.
@Don Balduf
DB: "If the prop isn't an airfoil, he didn't fly with it."
SB: Whitehead would have had a comeback,
It wouldn't have satisfied the engineer but it was enough for the reporters.
You don't need an airfoil prop to fly.
You do need more power to overcome the inefficiency of a paddle prop.
You can also fly without airfoil wings.
There were two look alike replicas that were built using
a modern engine with power that matched Whitehead's claims and with modern (airfoil) props.
With the modern additions, the contraption hopped
a considerable distance without crashing.
@@stevebett4947 one such aircraft is housed and maintained just a few miles from my home at Dayton-Wright Brothers Airport. I’ve seen it many times in the air and static. The pilots say it’s rather a different beast from a modern aircraft but flies well as long as its flying characteristics are known and respected.
@@stevebett4947 Except he didn't have excess power.
I had no idea John Denver flew a replica of the Wright Flyer until today. Evidently he was far more interested in flight than I was aware of. It's always nice to learn interesting little historical tidbits in these videos.
Thanks Bagle, it makes me happy to hear that these little tidbits of side info are interesting to people.
Denver was the son of a USAF pilot who set several records in a B-58 Hustler bomber, so flight was evidently in his blood. It was his love of aviation, sadly apparently coupled with inattention to safety detail (see the wikipedia article on Denver) that killed him.
@@Ensign_Cthulhu
I knew he flew his own planes and I remember him dying in a plane crash, I just never knew he went so far as to fly a replica of the Wright Flyer.
I'll check that Wiki article out, thanks for the info.
I'm leaving on a Wright's plane
Don't know when I'll be back again
@@Ensign_CthulhuJohn Denver was flying an experimental and ran out of fuel that’s what I heard.
Greg is the jedi master of explaining aviation concepts and technology.
Oh, thanks.
It's 5 AM, 7 April, 2021: so to entertain myself before everyone else wakes I see another of Greg's aviation videos. He never fails to entertain And educate... And I am a retired Naval Aviator, with some aviation firsts too. (Though not published and so not official) Aviation is such a young science, its still possible to meet and greet some really great important old timers. Also, new things are happening all the time. Enjoy.
Mr. Whitehead, congratulations on your non recorded victories. You, and other test pilots or aviators on the leading edge never get enough credit.
@ray whitehead, hope you’ve discovered the excellent CZcams channel of fellow naval aviator, Ward Carroll. He just got done interviewing pals at the Tailhook convention to share a few tales. Maybe you two could get together and publish a few unofficial aviation firsts, sure we’d love to hear them!
Thank you for such a great historic video! As a teacher of history and airplane buff for over fifty years, I find your quality of research and knowledge to be amazing! Again. thank you for such a great video and history lesson. I used to hate being the only one out in the wilderness saying many of the things you state, but not nearly as well!
Langley used a catapult too, no one criticized him for that.
@428 Renegade: Langley used a catapult too, no one criticized him for that.
@SB: We have the video of the Langley's catapult in action.
It didn't conform to the Brazilian expectations.
It couldn't make pigs or shit or or anything fly.
The Langley-Manley Aerodyne prototype just came to the end of the linear catapult
and dropped into the Potomac without flying at all..
Langley's model Aerodrome, however, did complete a successful flight.
and was photographed by Alexander Graham Bell.
Langley used a spring catapult. The Wright derrick catapult was different.
Links: video.
Langley Aerodrome: czcams.com/video/M-5DeIvOJ7Y/video.html
I think the video is included in one of Greg's videos.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley_Aerodrome Oct. 7, 1903
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Samuel_Pierpont_Langley__-Potomac_experiment_1903.jpeg/375px-Samuel_Pierpont_Langley-__Potomac_experiment_1903.jpeg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aviation
First Flight: web.archive.org/web/20110104020557/history.nasa.gov/monograph27.pdf
www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Wright_Story/Inventing_the_Airplane/Darkest_Hour/Darkest_Hour.htm
@SanPol, @j b, @Jindle Spong,
@Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles @Açúcar Chocolate, @MrBelo,
@majorbett, @rjn bonif, @pipe cigar, @danieldbd,
@Gilberto Nedel Junior, @No Brainer Languages,
@rocknroll, @Selma Nedel, @harpiasonhadora sonhadora,
@Marco Papa, @Anubis, @Ma-At, @majorbett,
@Renaldo Borges, @elias lima, Maria Luiza Wiethaeuper
@@stevebett4947 Doesn't matter, he used a catapult, and that is the whole point. And just because the plane never flew from the catapult, doesn't mean the catapult didn't work or couldn't launch a flying machine successfully.
@@SoloRenegade the catapult could launch a flying machine...
SB: The issue is how this particular type of catapult worked.
There are different catapults
that will launch anything (e.g., a large trebuchet).
The linear catapult will accelerate objects but the lift
has to be provided by wings or an airfoil shape.
@@stevebett4947 One, I know how an airplane flies, and two, I'm well aware of what a catapult is and how they work, and the many types. But, for the sake of my original comment, the exact type and method of operation of the catapult is/was of no concern.
@@SoloRenegade As I recall Greg's comment was.
"If the plane won't fly, the catapult won't make it fly."
The linear catapult does not supply any lift.
Lift is provided by the wing's angle of attack
and by the wing's camber and airfoil.
Camber is defined as the convexity of the curve of an
airfoil from the leading edge to the trailing edge.
Camber is usually designed into an airfoil
to maximize its lift coefficient.
Maximum lift is achieved at the stall angle.
or just below the angle of attack that results in a stall.
A typical lift coefficient is 1.5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camber_(aerodynamics)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_coefficient
I always admired Santos Dumont Demoiselle airplane as an flying object of fragile beauty. I understand later in life Santos was greatly grieved and outraged when he witnessed airplanes being employed to bomb people. He really was a brave and sensitive soul when it came to flight.
Excellent work, you treat the Dumont-Wright situation fairly and clearly researched this extensively. Eagerly waiting for the next documentary.
Greg I hope you never get tired of doing this
Good video as always.
I don't blame Dumont for being pissy about having the record stripped from him.
He spent his life trying to accomplish what no man has before, he and every else believed he had done it. Then it gets stripped and he is told someone else did it better and a year before him.
I know I wouldn't have the humility to admit defeat.
I get it. He was an emotional sort from what I can tell, but he was also a genius, very brave, and made some huge contributions that are often overlooked.
Seems to happen to Brazilians all the time for some reason. See Felipe Massa for example.
@@wingracer1614 Didn't happen to Senna
@@thekinginyellow1744 Actually you could argue that it did in 1989
@@wingracer1614 Fittipaldi 👍
Love when you get fired up over the Wright bros. I enjoyed the content immensely. I went back and re-watched your excellent "Wright bros. did invent the airplane" content. I know it's a lot of work putting this together..but your efforts are greatly appreciated. Thanks Greg!
I’m in college and listen to lectures about aviation all the time, but these videos are always much more entertaining and informative.
Very Good. Even more information on the Wrights and propellers. Thank you for your hard work researching this, and the no nonsense presentation, no drama, let the facts speak.
I absolutely love your takedown of the “Wright Brothers didn’t fly” nonsense.
The Wright catapult was developed in 1904. Sure, they flew in December, but it was still 1903.
Taking off into a headwind=not flight? Well, I need to turn in my pilots license, since its standard for all flights to take off into a headwind if possible.
Exactly.
Well done, as usual, Greg. Always good to know something of the past and its significant actors when diving into new information and ideas. Looking forward to the next episode.
“A human cyclist can produce 1000 watts for maybe a minute” Thank you for the flattering estimate 😸
Only a very strong human cyclist.
Consider the fact that the AC75 yachts need 6 to 8 men just to produce some power to operate them. A about 2hp engine would give more power easily.
@@hurri7720 Yes, by definition, 1 hp is 745.7 watts, so 2hp = 1491.4 watts
Continous 200w/85kg mass = realistic 35kph in aerodynamic position riding on a flat plane. . No human powered flying machine works in this power enveloppe.
Hey there fellow aviation nerds - I am one of you and also a former amateur bicycle racer from the times of power meters. Watt output is heavily tied to body size and weight. It’s very similar to gasoline engines. More displacement is analogous to more muscle and a larger frame. Elite male cyclists with height and weight above average, along with thorough conditioning can produce a steady 300 watts or more for as long as 30 minutes. Cycling usually does allow for periods of rest and recovery, so using a long flat course like a triathlete would use might give the best comparison to aircraft engines. 800+ watts output is what would be measured in a sprint or burst of effort. Once again muscle mass is heavily in play. The most powerful sprinters are track racers and road race sprint specialists. The best professionals can ride over 100 miles continuously in a group, and produce 1600+ watts for several seconds at the end.
The guy that flew a human powered plane across the English channel radioed to his crew about half way across that he just couldn't go on. They told him about all the sharks and he made it!
As chance has it, just a couple days ago me and a friend started building a steam engine meant to power a little RC boat. Yesterday he asked me, can we perhaps make our boat propeller for that ourself, instead of buying something from a store - "how hard can it be to make a propeller?" :D
Easy to make a junk one, it's really freaking difficult to make a good one but it can be done. I've never made one from scratch but in my RC boat days I did a lot of prop modifying. Even had little jigs for precisely measuring pitch at every point of the blade.
@@wingracer1614 Yeah I think we'll give it a go, but keep the store-bought one at hand "just for reference" (meaning if ours doesn't work well, in goes the plastic part) - a luxury that the Wrights literally didn't have; all the "store bought" ones which the most intelligent and knowledgable experts on the subject had developed so far, were garbage.
@@decnet100 Making one yourself is often also a lot of fun and probably more fun than making a pre fabricated one.
@@martijn9568 Cheers, will try :) Not sure if from brass or plastic though. Definitely filing will be involved :)
@@decnet100 Serious question... Could you 3D print a prop for an RC boat? It might take some of the fun out of "making" one, but it would be a cheap way to try a few different designs.
A fresh brew of java and a fresh video from Greg what a great start to my morning this side of the Pond - Thank you. As an ex Master Mariner I actually learnt somethings I did not know about propellers after +40yrs of them pushing me along. Some great historical information too.
Now you have got me intrigued Greg; I hope you are going to do a follow up video on your "throw away" remark about Boeing's tail wind upgrade.
As always keep safe, keep sane and keep posting such excellent & interesting content.
preemptively liked
Same
always
Never disappointed.
It was a pretty safe bet, lol. The dude delivers.
11 Frenchmen disagree apparently
Well presented and argued. Glad to see you are handling this as a progression of videos that appear to have you on a path to join up with your sweet spot, WWII aircraft, and maybe beyond? TM 1-412 Aircraft Propellers 1944 is a nice reference also.
The Wright brothers deserve sainthood. They only attended high school, were only bicycle mechanics, and they effectively applied the scientific method to change the world. They were secretive, but maybe they were justified considering the abuse they suffered. I love these kind of videos. Thank you sir.
Hey! Watch your mouth, my mother's a bicycle mechanic.
If the Wrights hadn't built their own airplane, do you really think nobody else in the rest of the world could have figured out controlled flight? Hundreds of people were working on it and the problem would have eventually been solved. The Wrights solved it in their own way. But nobody else used their layout or control system because it really wasn't very good.
@@PDZ1122If it was very good how come they had control when other people couldn’t do it.
@@PDZ1122fokker eindecker
My grandfather was a highschool graduate in 1918. I invite anyone to look up what was required to be a highschool graduate back then. Education in the US has seriously gone downhill in the last 100 years. Highschool was no joke back then.
Is it weird that the most fascinating part of this video to me, was seeing a picture of a Grumman Avenger launching out a hangar deck?
I know, right?
Well worth the wait. I look forward to the next one.
In 95 I moved to Brasil, and it didnt' take long for me to start hearing about Dumont, and how the airplane was from Brasil.. constantly...
Outstanding Greg! I cannot wait for part 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks, I'm having fun making it.
More Schneider Cup racer content!
Really? I mean, I could do that easily enough.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yes please, such an amazing phase of aviation; where seaplanes where the fastest thing around, and something like the Piaggio P.7 seemed like a good idea.
Absolutely! So much innovation out of that era carried into WW2. I'd argue that going further and covering all the major air racing events of the inter-war years would be a fascinating topic.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Schneider cup content would be amazing!
Best "off on a tangent" video ever.
Amazingly researched and just superb. Love your work Greg.
Greg - great video - I learned a lot. I've been flying for over 20 years now and never lost my thirst for flight and flying knowledge - thank you.
I can’t believe that I (of all people) have to correct a glaring misstatement about Dumont’s propeller: it doesn’t look like a double bladed oar AT ALL. It looks like a double bladed (kayak) paddle. Oars are fixed to the boat by a pivot point, paddles are held in the hands, single blades are canoe paddles, double ended ones are kayak. ;)
With that tongue-in-cheek internet overreaction quibble out of the non-Wright (wrong?) propellers really do look like kayak paddles and whitewater ones at that. Those are something I used to use often before shoulder injuries told me to take it easy.
Finally, and by far most importantly, I love your channel and it’s content. Please keep up the excellent work.
Thanks Dennis, I didn't know the difference between oars and paddles. I learn something new every day.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles No worries at all, since I learn a couple dozen things per video of yours, I am still much in your debt.
Cheers!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles There are some very good pictures of the Antionette 50 hp engine with its transmission and paddle props. See Wikipedia.
With 50 hp available rather than 8-16 hp, the props don't have to be particularly efficient.
The Brazilian look alike replica went back to a lower 25 hp. engine because with a modern prop, the extra horsepower was not needed.
With the Demoiselle airframe, it was not as easy to add
a 50 hp engine but Santos Dumont did it. It was not successful. The Demoiselle did not fly until it added a
modern French airfoil prop in 1909. It still did not fly
well enough for Santos Dumont to enter it into the
circular flight competition or the Week of Aviation competitions in 1909 and 1910.
Invited to discuss
@Greg's airplanes and Automobiles
@GBooth
@Solo Renegade,
@Mark Hornea, @Pease, @ECBrazil\o/, @h lynn keith,
@SanPol, @j b, @Jindle Spong,
Greg, you need to consider the possibility that the incorrect arguments are not because of ignorance; they are because of ACTIVE MALICE.
Hmm, I hadn't considered that, but I'm afraid you may be correct. It fits a pattern I see.
I have found that the opposite of the cliche true: "Never attribute to stupidity, that which is adequately explained through malice." The original cliche of dismissing any notion of malice is too often the escape of the cowardly. Pardon the presumption, but I think Greg has been well aware of the possibility that the misrepresentations are intentional, rather than innocent "mistakes". That the actors are well aware that their arguments are in bad faith.
The same has been true of many such lies in aviation history. One of the more famous ones involve the lies about the Moon Landing being "faked". What's important about these lies is to duly recorded and repeatedly plastered on the people who trumpeted them. Even now, everyone from former Jewish Nomenklatura to Japanese Aeronautical engineers are trying to foist their slander on the shoulders of a single American engineer of all things - eager to pretend they were victims rather than perpetrators. The attempts to sully the achievement of the Moon Landings were mostly foreign in origin and drive in worldwide media, academia, and yes professional culture (even American engineers and pilots disgraced themselves and sold out their country by shrinking back at the accusations of their supposed foreign "colleagues", rather than turning their backs on these ).
They know that to continue pumping out new Lies, their old Lies need to be forgotten or swept away - like a Global Cooling/Warming/Change Con-Artist hoping the new generation never learns of their long, unbroken record of failed predictions, prognostications and deceptions.
Thus the importance of histriography; to record not just the original history and how its telling changes over time, but also the LIES about history and how THEY change over time.
It is important to remember the Truth - and those who were Wright.
The flip-side is that it is also important to remember the Lies - and the Liars.
I didn't believe you until I had a run in with a group dedicated to "disproving" the brothers. Yes, they exist.
They lie through their teeth and pretend to have all the reason. May God help their souls.
Man I sure have run into that a lot over the years. You can't even mention the Bell X1 on some comment sections.
aCtIvE mAlIcE
To paraphrase Brian Wilson (santos dumont) 'then the Beatles appeared and made us look as stylish as golf caddies'
I zone out on long videos. Very little real content presented inefficiently.
I watch every minute of Greg’s work.
A hello from France Greg, I discover your channel with pleasure. I'm going to give you a compliment probably not expected. Greg my English is very poor and usually I can't follow a spoken documentary in English... Except yours!!!!
What is clear is simply spoken, and your voice and diction are a real pleasure to follow.
Incidentally, I have been an love aviation and technology boy since I was 6 years old and was probably the first injured in a delta glider in France in 1971 at the age of 11, but the injuries were less serious than expected, because the delta glider was not so poorly designed and balanced. If I had known the approach of the Wrights, and not operated like a Frenchman, I would have known that a good airplane without control is nothing! And my approach was as naive as that of Clément Ader, who was nevertheless an outstanding inventor.
Congratulation Greg
Yvan Pesenti
The Wright Brothers were under-appreciated. They contributed greatly to aerodynamics, control, props... The brothers depended on other highly touted inventors data for wing design which was faulty so they built a primitive wind tunnel and wrote the book on lift for their wings.
Life is good! Another awesome video to increase all of our’s knowledge. Yea, I managed a sneak peak, y’all will love it
When a bicycle won't get you out of Dayton fast enough.
'Dayton - A graveyard with streetlights.' ;-)
As usual, a well researched, well made video. I learn more watching an hour of your videos than I could by watching 10 hours of History or Discovery on the same subject.
Pre-buying food for this one! Let’s do this Greg!
great video.
I never knew the WB advanced prop design that much. Also amazing even small difference in density altitude could make a difference - I guess it makes sense the first planes were barely airworthy.
The WB were really amazing
* accomplished mechanics (bikes, printing presses, and planes)
* ran their own wind tunnel
* pretty much invented controls
* greatly advanced prop design
Not bad for two boys born couple years after the civil war.
The WB first plane had 12 hp with 16 hp "war emergency power" ; - )
Dumont is so ingrained in Brazilian culture, i speculated that if one went to the brazil edition of wikipedia, dumont would get full credit for heavier than air flight. And..thats exactly what they did. I wonder if hiroshima was 100% unprovoked according to the japan edition of Wikipedia
Bravo Greg! In as limited an area possible the Wrights development of propeller design demonstrated the depth of their understanding of aeronautics and their careful, methodical pursuit of flight. When they flew they didn't do it by chance! They could show their work, so to speak, in clear numbers and calculations. I credit the fact that they had limited resources for the project and HAD to get the details right before they could build the flyer. They could not afford to guess!
It's interesting and telling that the Wrights' records are still available to us today while Dumont destroyed all his papers.
@@Ensign_Cthulhu Yet some Wright critics claim that
Santos Dumont provided more documentation.
No explanation provided it is just another unsupported claim.
I believe Ader's Avion 3 probably did make a brief uncontrolled hop before 1900. Dumont's 14bis's "flight" wasn't much more than an extended version of that. However, I can't understand how anyone could claim that the 14 bis made the first heavier than air flight in history when over a year earlier the Wrights could stay aloft for over half an hour in sustained controlled flight. This is a documented historical fact that's not up for debate. My only argument, and it's a weak one at that, is that the early Wright flyers seemed to be so dependent on weather conditions (that is, density altitude) so not totally practical in that you couldn't fly whenever and wherever you wanted. Still, they were so far ahead of everyone else and of course, things improved with better engines.
Terrific video. Love your work. It is curious how much resistance there is to giving the Wrights the credit they deserve. Their work is impressive, addressing problem after problem with hard work and talent. As you point out, they were not richly financed and just kept on going in the face of adversity. Thanks for the great work.
I'm just here commenting to prop up Greg's algorithm. As usual you have done a fantastic job screwing into the issues at hand and you even kept yourself from spinning off into the stratosphere by getting distracted with issues not salient to the rarefied air these early pioneers of flight lifted themselves to.
Well done Greg and well worth the wait. That float plane example you showed has always been a favorite piece of aircraft history. Impressive performance and technology came out of that endeavor!
As always I learned a lot from the depth of knowledge disseminated by this video.
I have heard that both Santos Dumont and even Manley were credited by some as the inventors of the aeroplane and have been correctly (as it turns out) suspicious. Having learned so much from this video it is more clear than ever that the Wrights deserve the credit. More importantly the claim in the book 'Visions of a flying machine" that the Wrights discovered aerodynamics first and built their glider and planes based on that makes more sense than ever.
Thank you, I feel empowered to quietly and confidently disagree with bar-room experts who claim that Santos Dumont should have the laurels now.
i'm glad you spanked the wright haters. soundly, in my opinion. thank you.
"Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" is the pilot's edition of the "Junior Woodchucks' Guidebook", isn't it?
Why are we talking about the Wrights and Dumont? The first powered flight was Daedelus and Icarus. I've seen the pictures.
True, and Maxim was quite early too, flew several hundred ft in 1894 with three persons aboard the aeroplane, I believe, although without much control, and certainly not intended. Wilbur Wright even credited Maxim with the first powered flight.
Thank you so much! I've been thirsting for a deep dive into the design of propellers and why they are the way they were/are. And who better than you to do it! I am eagerly waiting for the next installment!
As usual a very fair and thorough examination of the subject. I especially like that you didn’t just diminish Dumont but did give him credit he deserved. Well done.
I was about to be all "What, nothing about the literal century old french airplane still flying?" when I remembered that was more 1910/1911 than the *EARLY* stuff in the 19-single-digits.
I am proud of you for standing up for the Wright brothers. Especially in this day and age. Thanks👍
"Damaged by Customs. Seems like that still happens."
😂🤣😂🤣
Yes it does. Customs causes far more problems for law abiding businesses in the United States than Pablo Escobar ever did. I don't even want to get started going down that road right now.
Just found this, the best channel on YT I now know of, particularly for those with a technical interest. Thank you, Greg!
The catapult was not needed to get the Wright airplane airborne, but just to make take off easier and shorter, in some cases.
It was usually needed in Dayton. When you need the "assistance" of a 15 mph+ headwind and the wind is only 10 mph,
the extra 6 mph of forward thrust provided by the catapult is needed to get the Flyer airborne.
The catapult is a way to shorten the wooden rail runway.
Excellent video, as always! I love the relatively recent biography of the Wrights and appreciate you used you channel to shine a bit of light on their work.
Although delivered in your customary relaxed style, it is, as always, utterly captivating due to the quality, sincerity, integrity and depth of the content. As with others on CZcams - Drachinifel and Mark Felton to name two - existing TV "channel" production is knocked into a cocked hat, or in this case a leather flying helmet.
I can take either one of those two in a dogfight anytime.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Beware, Drach as a ship guy has onboard AA of 20mm to 5in cannon with VT fuze shells. Don't know what Doc Felton is packing, but the mild mannerd ones always have an ace up their sleave.
If one can hold interest long enough, this is the most informative collection of details on early flight!
Really great. Not just flying. Design. Motors. Weight. And the elusive propeller. Great history here.
If I've learned anything recently it's that Brazilian's are really, really convinced they made the first airplane. It's like talking to someone living in another reality.
I mean people talking about the US winning the space race because we got to the moon first is one thing, but we don't pretend that the Russians didn't orbit a satellite or put a man in space first.
It's easier to concede a loss when you followed it up with a win.
In fact, i'm read about the fight in space of Yuri Gagarin is denied by americans Just because some minor tecnincal aspects.
When I was a teenager back in the 1960's me and my mates would spend hours crafting props for our CL combat models, all without knowing any of this history.
I remember the control line models.
I suspect that a lot of the animosity towards the Wrights has grown from their extreme litigiousness regarding their control surface patent. Even Curtiss, a fellow American, tried to undermine their achievement in order to get around the patent.
This gets into a classic chicken or the egg question perhaps. It seems to me more like the fact the Wrights managed to hold onto their status inevitably attracts detraction. There are enough stories of other inventive individuals being cheated out of credit, to some degree or another, by people with more money and connections.
The situation with the Wrights looks at least as much like a case where many others did try to cheat them, and may have succeeded if the brothers had been less careful and protective.
@@cosmoscoronado8862 It's a tough question: On the hand, early aircraft manufacture was a very tough business, so you can understand the Wrights and their business partners trying to get money from their patent. You can also understand those who tried to avoid paying the Wrights a percentage by undermining their claims. The Wrights' secretiveness made that easier. The French made more progress because they developed good rotary engines, but also because their inventors weren't tied up in the courts.
In the grand scheme of history the Wright brothers count as a "score one for the little guy(s)" to me. The skills and talents for attaining and holding onto wealth are typically synonymous with exploiting the more specific skills and talents of others. Just the way it is.
So again, at least the Wright brothers held onto the moral victory, which doesn't always happen. This is obviously why I get rather protective myself, in response to attacks on that legacy.
@@cosmoscoronado8862 I think there is an untold story here. The Wrights' had sold a glider and a Wright Flyer to Ernest Archdeacon and Capt. Ferber (his test pilot). Archdeacon, C and Weiner were members of the syndicate that advanced over $15,000 to the
Wrights which made it possible for the Wrights to go to Europe to help set up the engine and airframe companies they would need to built the Wright Model A and a replica of the 1906 Dayton upright 4 engine.
Many Brazilians think they came to steal from Santos Dumont. They argue the Flyer could not fly until they installed a French
built engine similar to the Antoinette V8.
@@eweidenh The Wright's "secretiveness"? I think this video shows well that the Wright openness and display of build techniques and open patents let everyone else understand how to do things and led to modern powered flight. After the Wrights there was real engineering.
Fantastic info on the DR-I...never knew that!
The 14 Bis may not be that great of an aircraft, but it might be the most beautiful of the pioneers there is. Obviously aesthetics were never a consideration in these projects, but something about the Bis is just beautiful.
中井久夫 : "Something about the 14 Bis is just beautiful."
I think box kites are beautiful and box kite wings with dihedral are
extremely stable and practical.
It is interesting that Hargrave did not stick with his box kite design.
He proved that adding camber to the
surfaces of the kite doubled their lift and that there was enough lift
with multiple celular wing kites to suspend a man above the ground.
The Voisin company that built the box kite winged float plane glider added a lot of wire and change the look of the box kite. The airframe that he gave to Santos Dumont lacked a motor and a refined control system.
"Santos Dumont's airframe was built by Voisin and was based on his speedboat towed box-kite winged pontoon glider.
It had a fix box kite in the front. Dumont could have specified that he wanted to add pilot control to the forward box kite. I have found no information on that. It may have been intentionally hidden.
The flight of the modernized Bis 14 look alike replica
was also a thing of beauty. Its flight in the hands of a pilot with 1000's of hours in the air would not be he same as a pilot with less than 15 min. of fight training. It was much smoother and the control surfaces seemed to
actually work. Still Santos Dumont's flights were still a thing of beauty to the spectators at the game field.
References:
Bennet Cup at 1909 & 1910 Aviation Weeks
Santos Dumont in his Demoiselle set a speed & distance record (5 miles in 5 min.) after he installed a modern French integral prop but he was a no show at both Aviation weeks.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Bennett_Trophy_(aeroplanes)
Invited to discuss
@Greg's airplanes and Automobiles
@gbooth
@Solo Renegade,
@Mark Hornea, @Pease, @ECBrazil\o/, @h lynn keith,
@SanPol, @j b, @Jindle Spong,
Low key and factual, these are the best CZcams videos on technical aviation history, period.
the twin counter-rotating prop seaplane racer also looks to be a twin engine (in line), Thank you Greg for all the work you do to bring this information to us.
I'll talk about that engine another time.
'Tis a twin inline, and contra-props there to prevent torque-side effects. Larger float normally req'd on torque side (to counter bouancy/level issues) can now be smaller=less air drag=more speed=competitive advantage!
Some of those early examples of propellers seem to be merely lightweight copies of early naval propellers.
Greg, you really do spoil us with your near 1 hour long vids...thank you
You are so cool Greg, I love how when you start doing the technote stuff, it makes me understand what's is going through my dogs thought process when she hears that strange sound and she tilts her head and looks at me, it's best when we watch you together and know exactly what one another is thinking.
Awesome video! Thanks for making and sharing.
The replica I’d really want to see is the Santos Dumont No. 9, his boulevard blimp. Such a cool thing, and yet incredibly pioneering.
I made a scale rc snoopy doghouse fly, sorta. It was barely controllable in pitch but I hid every kind of jerry rig flight surfaces inside the doghouse to make it work.
I'm actually going to get up at midnight for this
I'll be there with you to answer any questions.
Just about 7am for me, luckily I have the day off tomorrow so I'll be able to watch it all the way through.
Me as well (UK) .....will be worth if it starts with "....greetings this is Greg "
I had forgotten about John Denver doing that. I think that was how I first heard about the Wright Flyer actually and became interested in it's story. So the french replicas were done like they resto-mod antique cars. They have the look and feel but then you realize the tires are more advanced, the brakes are modern and it has a reliable new battery etc. Really does change a lot. It's certainly great fun to see them fly though. Interesting from a modern perspective to see how old designs can be improved with a lot of research behind us and new materials and small modifications. You can see how close they were making the best out of what they had available. To think how far they came in only 30 years after that with lessons learned from these prototypes.
That info about the Fokker DR 1
Is new to me 😎
Just awesome, you will always learn something new watching
Some serious channels 😀
48:50
I actually laughed salsa into my nose in the middle of lunch.
A great piece greg, you made your arguments well and repeatedly just like the wrights did with their aircraft. Forget the silly flat earthers.
This was amazing, can’t wait to digest #2 & 3 on props. I asked a few questions on the fw190 series related to prop efficiency, testing, rpm, mp, etc, and as of 8min into this first video you’ve answered one. And I’m so glad I didn’t skip this one, as I figured “bah, what will i learn about cs props from those old kites.” That was wrong, way wrong. Also, you opened up a whole new time period in aviation to me. For example, I had no idea the Wright’s were so methodical; I did know of the efficiency of their propeller, but never really followed up on it. Which is strange, I generally like to learn of the origins of things I find interesting.