|
have sent our original 1903 machine to the British National Museum
because of the hostile and unfair attitude shown towards us by the
officials of the Smithsonian Institution. While Professor Langley
was secretary of the Smithsonian, all of the relations between that
Institution and ourselves were friendly. At that time Wilbur and I
were universally given credit not only for having made the first
flight, but for having produced the first machine capable of flight,
and for the scientific research from which this first machine
sprang.
Our 1903 machine was based entirely on our own scientific tables and
none other. Langley's published work in aerodynamics consisted of
measurements of air pressures on flat surfaces only. By an entirely
different method we had made measurements of a great number of
cambered surfaces, as well as of flat surfaces. Our measurements of
flat surfaces did not agree with those made by Professor Langley.
Although we were not able to use any of Professor Langley's
measurements, because we had found them far from accurate, yet on
every occasion where opportunity was offered we expressed our
sincere appreciation for the inspiration and confidence Professor
Langley's standing in the scientific world had given us when we were
starting. After Professor Langley's death the attitude of the
Smithsonian began to change. The Institution began a subtle campaign
to take from us much of the credit then universally accorded us and
to bring this credit to its former secretary, Professor Langley.
Through some clever and some absolutely false statements it
succeeded in doing this with people who were not acquainted with the
facts.
To illustrate the kind of thing to which I object in the attitude of
the Smithsonian, I will cite out of many a few specific cases:
It misrepresented in the Annual Report of the Secretary for the year
1910 (page 23) the statement made by my brother Wilbur at the time
of the presentation of the Langley Medal to us by inserting a
quotation not sued by him on that occasion, but used in a different
connection at another time. The improper use of this quotation
created a false impression over the world that we had acknowledged
indebtedness to Langley's scientific work and our mechanical
ingenuity that produced the first flying machine. This was not true.
In a private letter to Octave Chanute at the time of Professor
Langley's death we had used the words in acknowledging an
indebtedness to Langley for the inspiration he had been to us. We
had previously told Mr. Chanute of our entire lack of confidence in
Langley's scientific work in aerodynamics.
Our original 1903 machine was offered in 1910 to the Smithsonian for
exhibition in the National Museum. The officials did not want it,
but preferred a much altered model of less historic interest. After
the United States Circuit Court of Appeals had given a decision
pronouncing Glenn H. Curtiss an infringer of the Wright invention
and recognizing the Wrights as "pioneers" in the practical art of
flying with heavier-than-air machines, Curtiss was permitted to take
the original 1903 Langley machine from the Smithsonian to make tests
in an attempt to invalidate this title of "pioneer," for purposes of
another lawsuit. The Smithsonian appointed as its official
representative at these tests the man who had been Curtiss'
technical expert in the former suits and who was to serve again in
that capacity in a new one. It paid Curtiss $2,000 towards the
expense of the tests.
It published false and misleading reports of Curtiss' tests of the
machine at Hammondsport, leading people to believe that the original
Langley machine, which had failed to fly in 1903, had been flown
successfully at Hammondsport in 1914, without material change. (See
Report of the National Museum, 1914, pp. 46, 47. Smithsonian
Report,1914, pp. 4, 9, 217-222.) These reports were published in
spite of the fact that many changes, several of them of fundamental
importance, had been made at Hammondsport; among which were the
following: Wings of different camber, different area, different
aspect; trussing of a different type, placed in a different
location; Langley's fixed keel omitted; motor changed by
substituting different carburetor, different manifold, and different
ignition; propeller blades altered; hydroplane floats added; wing
spars, which collapsed in 1903, reinforced; tail rudder made
operable about a vertical axis, and connected to a regular Curtiss
steering post; small vane rudder replaced by a large rudder of
different design.
This machine restored back to its original form with much new
material, the old having been mutilated or destroyed at
Hammondsport, was placed in the National Museum with a false label,
saying that it was the first man-carrying aeroplane in the history
of the world capable of sustained free flight, and that it had been
successfully flown at Hammondsport, June 2, 1914. Following the
controversy on this subject three years ago the old label was
removed and a new one still containing false and misleading
statements was put in its stead. In spite of this long-continued
campaign of detraction, for years I kept silent, with the thought
that anyone investigating would find the facts and would expose
them. I had thought that truth eventually must prevail, but I have
found silent truth cannot withstand error aided by continued
propaganda.
I have endeavored to have these matters investigated within the
Smithsonian itself. I wrote to the Chancellor of the Institution
asking for an investigation of the acts of its Secretary in this
matter, and received an answer that while the Chancellor nominally
was the head of the board of the Smithsonian Institution, his other
duties were such as to make it impossible for him to give any real
attention to the questions which have to be settled by the
Secretary. I have publicly expressed the wish that some national
scientific society or other disinterested body make an impartial
investigation of my charges against the Smithsonian. To this there
has been no response.
In sending our original 1903 machine to the Science Museum, London,
I do so with the belief it will be impartially judged and will
receive whatever credit it is entitled to. I regret more than anyone
else that this course was necessary.
|
|
Up 
Why the Wright 
Need
to 