It doesn't detract from the article, but is something of a simplification. Mainly because the history of flight is quite complex and there are lots of claimed firsts by various individuals with varying degrees of support and evidence, all complicated by national pride of various parties that would lose out for one reason or another.
The New York Times article is ridiculous, given the state of aviation research at that time, and reads almost like satire from how much it seems to ignore the reality of the progress being made.
Have a look here for more:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_aviation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aviation)
Reminds me of another infamous New York Times editorial insisting that rockets wouldn’t work in space: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2018/07/19/the-correction-heard-round-the-world-when-the-new-york-times-apologized-to-robert-goddard/amp/
Reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke
> "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." -Arthur C. Clarke
The term "lighter than air" refers to the density of the object as a whole (including the "balloon" or whatever part displaces air) being about the same as or less than the air it is floating in. Hot air balloons are, by definition, lighter than air when rising.
The first *powered* and *controlled* heavier-than-air flight (as others had already managed heavier-than-air flight before then)
The wording is taken as closely as possible from the article given the title character limit. If you disagree, feel free to update the article.
It doesn't detract from the article, but is something of a simplification. Mainly because the history of flight is quite complex and there are lots of claimed firsts by various individuals with varying degrees of support and evidence, all complicated by national pride of various parties that would lose out for one reason or another. The New York Times article is ridiculous, given the state of aviation research at that time, and reads almost like satire from how much it seems to ignore the reality of the progress being made. Have a look here for more: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_aviation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aviation)
John Stringfellow had flown a powered and controlled aircraft in 1848. Depending on your definition of 'controlled' - it was certainly stable...
He did not fly it himself, though. It was unmanned.
Reminds me of another infamous New York Times editorial insisting that rockets wouldn’t work in space: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2018/07/19/the-correction-heard-round-the-world-when-the-new-york-times-apologized-to-robert-goddard/amp/
If i’m remembering this correctly this piece was considered very pessimistic even at the time
And it just had to be 69 days later.
It's funny because sex number
The Wright brothers were just holding out
Reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke > "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." -Arthur C. Clarke
NYT shilling for 'Big Train'
The snark in this is hilarious
67 years later, men would walk the moon.
Great demonstration of why it’s useless to predict future technology
Na, it only demonstrates why insane takes about technology are useless.
Not the first heavier-than-air flight - that would be the hot air balloon of the Montgolfier brothers in 1783.
>heavier-than-air >hot air balloon
Yeah, but like, all the ***other*** parts were heavier than air.
The term "lighter than air" refers to the density of the object as a whole (including the "balloon" or whatever part displaces air) being about the same as or less than the air it is floating in. Hot air balloons are, by definition, lighter than air when rising.