One hundred years down ... a few thousand to go

THERE'S A REALLY GOOD CHANCE that we'll all be "Wrighted-out" by the end of December. We'll have "Centennial of Flight" coming out our ears.

The Centennial is a big deal and deserves the importance accorded to it, but it's interesting to hear all the carping and to see the finger-pointing as the various "official" centennial bodies do their thing. It's also interesting to see how the Wrights have ascended to the status of deities in some circles but have been attacked for various reasons in others.

In this issue, we are guilty of serving up our own helping of Wright stuff (boy, will we be tired of that term by year's end!). We hope, however, that we've come at it from a different angle. For one thing, we answered some of the questions we had been asking ourselves for years.

As pilots, for instance, we've often wondered what was it like to fly a Wright Flyer? Thanks to Ken Kellet, an '03 Wright Flyer pilot, and Dan Patterson, an '05 Wright Flyer passenger, we now know.

And what made flying so difficult in the first place? Barnaby Wainfan, an advanced aerodynamicist, turned his space-age understanding of aerodynamics back 100 years to look at the '03 Flyer from the viewpoint of a new millennium engineer. Using modern understanding, he has explained its bad points (many) and its good points (only one: it actually flew), and he has analyzed the techniques that led to the Wrights' success.

We have also wondered why the Wrights' business practices generated so much controversy following their earthshaking first flight. Were they their own worst enemies? World-class historian and author Walt Boyne weighs in with his observations on the subject.

And then there's the centennial celebration itself. It seems as though everyone with tools in his garage has crafted an "exact" replica of the Wrights' airplane, and to hear each of them tell it, his is the only one that is truly accurate-such a small playing field; so many players. Historian Joe Gertler wades into that arena and picks his way through the minefield to explain "centennial fever" in a way that helps us mere mortals understand it.

Underlying all this is a subtle question that will probably never be answered: were the Wrights actually the first to fly? And, of course, that has to be countered with: how do you define "fly"? Can hopping off the ground and then crashing because the pilot had no control actually be called "flying"?

In the final analysis, regardless of any additional information that might emerge from the historical woodwork, Orville and Wilbur will always be remembered as the first to achieve a controlled flight from a level launch point. While their contributions after December 17 may be judged as minor, the point is that they established one important fact: powered flight was possible.

In the history of mankind, two characteristics have been established: first, as soon as one person proves something can be done, there is always a rash of innovators who take that basic idea and improve on it many times-most likely, leaving the original inventor in the dust. Second, in any situation, civilization's collective memory remembers only who was first. How many, for instance, can say with confidence whose footprints are next to Neil Armstrong's on the moon? (They're Buzz Aldrin's.) When it comes to history, first counts. Second doesn't.

Our new look

In case you didn't notice, a lot about this issue has changed. For one thing, we've gone to a different size: bigger, to give more room for more neat stuff. In addition, our new art director, Mike Amaditz, has come up with what we think is a stronger, more exciting look to better showcase our articles. After seven years, we thought it was time to shake things up a bit. What do you think?

Budd Davisson, Editor-in-Chief

Copyright Air Age Publishing Dec 2003
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved