Innumerable as the Starrs of Night,
Or Starrs of Morning, Dew-drops, which the Sun Impearls on every leaf and every flouer Milton |
||
Impearls | ||
NGC3132 © |
Beauty is truth, truth beauty,
— that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. Keats
E = M
Energy is eternal delight.
|
What wailing wight
© Copyright 2002 – 2009
|
Impearls Item page — this may be a chapter or subsection of a larger work. Click on link to access entire piece. Earthdate 2003-12-17
BBC and the anniversary of flight
The left continued its “Bah, humbug!” response to the great events of the age when BBC World broadcast an amazingly insulting (to Americans) and bizarre “tribute” to the hundredth anniversary of the Wright Brothers flight last night by questioning its authenticity. They unearthed an old, spurious claim that a Brazilian, not the Wright Brothers, was the first to fly — not in 1903 or sometime before, but 1906! How can a flight — even if it took place — happening in 1906 possibly beat out a first flight occurring in 1903? Why, the Wrights' claim is supposedly spurious, because: 1) The Wrights did much of their work in secret. (To which an appropriate response might be, what in the blazes does that have to do with the Wrights having actually accomplished the mission? It just shows the brothers were serious about protecting patentability of their invention. Besides, their flights were thoroughly witnessed.) And 2), the Brazilians also claim that, supposedly, the Wrights' first flight in 1903 took place under “ideal conditions,” by which I presume they mean that the Wrights' flight initially took off into a headwind (just as all airplanes do today, if they can). The BBC reporter and their interviewees went on and on about how the flight in 1903 was invalid because of these conditions. It's astonishing (or perhaps not, considering that this is the BBC) that no one interjected at any point, “What about the years 1904 and 1905?” Even if the Brazilians' (and the BBC's, by defection of journalistic responsibility) second critique of the Wrights' 1903 flight were admitted to have validity, during 1904 the brothers accomplished much more, as Professor James E. Vance, Jr., describes, writing in Encyclopædia Britannica: 1
That should dispose of any illusions that powered flight wasn't invented until 1906! A remarkable characteristic of the Wright Brothers' fabulous achievement is the quality science they performed in making their dream a reality. In approaching the critical problem of designing an efficient propeller, for example, they discerned that a cross-sectional slice of the propeller is actually equivalent to a piece of wing. They developed and built a new, much lighter engine to power the craft — weight also being of vital concern. The Wrights realized that control of the plane in flight was essential, both for success and pilot survivability, and came up with means (described above) to maneuver the craft along all three axial dimensions. Attempts by others toward attaining powered flight during this same time frame were notably deficient in any number of these areas — and as a result they failed. For the BBC to step into this centennial occasion — celebration of realization of one of mankind's oldest dreams — broadcasting their usual supercilious sneer is quite offensive.
But good going BBC in confirming my previous estimations of them!
Reference
1
James E. Vance, Jr. (Emeritus Professor of Geography, University of California, Berkeley), “Transportation: … Aviation: … The Wright brothers,” Encyclopædia Britannica, Britannica CD 1997, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
UPDATE: 2003-12-18 16:00 UT. Rand Simberg posted a link to this piece in his Transterrestrial Musings. Thanks Rand, and to Mike Daley who passed this along to him. I certainly agree with Simberg in one of his postings earlier that a major factor in the Wrights' success is their having taken an incremental approach to testing and solving problems piecemeal, rather than jumping straight towards a total perceived “solution.” UPDATE: 2003-12-21 23:00 UT. A discussion on a space science discussion list has arisen concerning this article. I've posted a follow-up piece in Impearls here (permalink) with my reply.
|
2002-11-03 2002-11-10 2002-11-17 2002-11-24 2002-12-01 2002-12-08 2002-12-15 2002-12-22 2002-12-29 2003-01-05 2003-01-12 2003-01-19 2003-01-26 2003-02-02 2003-02-16 2003-04-20 2003-04-27 2003-05-04 2003-05-11 2003-06-01 2003-06-15 2003-06-22 2003-06-29 2003-07-13 2003-07-20 2003-08-03 2003-08-10 2003-08-24 2003-08-31 2003-09-07 2003-09-28 2003-10-05 2003-10-26 2003-11-02 2003-11-16 2003-11-23 2003-11-30 2003-12-07 2003-12-14 2003-12-21 2003-12-28 2004-01-04 2004-01-11 2004-01-25 2004-02-01 2004-02-08 2004-02-29 2004-03-07 2004-03-14 2004-03-21 2004-03-28 2004-04-04 2004-04-11 2004-04-18 2004-04-25 2004-05-02 2004-05-16 2004-05-23 2004-05-30 2004-06-06 2004-06-13 2004-06-20 2004-07-11 2004-07-18 2004-07-25 2004-08-22 2004-09-05 2004-10-10 2005-06-12 2005-06-19 2005-06-26 2005-07-03 2005-07-10 2005-07-24 2005-08-07 2005-08-21 2005-08-28 2005-09-04 2005-09-11 2005-09-18 2005-10-02 2005-10-09 2005-10-16 2005-10-30 2005-11-06 2005-11-27 2006-04-02 2006-04-09 2006-07-02 2006-07-23 2006-07-30 2007-01-21 2007-02-04 2007-04-22 2007-05-13 2007-06-17 2007-09-09 2007-09-16 2007-09-23 2007-10-07 2007-10-21 2007-11-04 2009-06-28 2009-07-19 2009-08-23 2009-09-06 2009-09-20 2009-12-13 2011-03-27 2012-01-01 2012-02-05 2012-02-12 |
0 comments: (End) Post a Comment