1 The Airplane as a Collective Invention Peter B. Meyer U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics But nothing here represents official findings or policy. Asia-Pacific and Business History Conference EHS ANZ Brisbane, Feb. 16, 2006

2 Introduction Hobbyists have developed important technology. Examples:  open source software (Linux; ; Web servers/browsers)  personal computers (Homebrew Club of hobbyists, circa 1975)  airplanes – a clearly documented case These individuals shared information in networks. Firms and industries then arose. How to model the individuals and explain the network?  What are the stylized facts such a model might predict?  What assumptions in a model are needed?  How would an industry start in the model?

3 Agenda in this presentation Describe the network of proto-airplane developers Octave Chanute, his book, and his correspondence Example experimenters:  Lilienthal, Hargrove, Langley, and the Wrights Possible stylized facts Possible assumptions for model of individuals

4 Experimenters and Octave Chanute Octave Chanute takes interest in flying machines Wealthy former engineer in Chicago Ran experiments of his own on gliders Described previous work in 1894 book Progress in Flying Machines.  discusses a hundred individuals, from many countries, professions  and many experiments, devices, theories  helps define “flying machines” work, focused on kites  book supports network of information and interested people Chanute corresponded actively with many experimenters. Chanute preferred that everyone’s findings be open.

5 What are they making? Aeronautical journals appear in 1870s and 1880s. Experimenters make diverse choices. Available metaphors: Balloons are light, ascends without power  Meteorological balloons, hot-air, helium-filled balloons Rockets are high-powered, rigid, hard to control Kites and gliders (light; fixed wings generating lift)  For lift (upward force), requires speed. Propulsion? Flapping wings? Birds are light and have big wings Propellers? Jets?  Power? muscles, steam engines, internal combustion engines, in models, wound up rubber bands  Hard to control

6 Example: Clement Ader’s Eole It traveled 50 meters in uncontrolled flight in 1891 Ader and others foresaw military implications. He would not patent outside France because it would expose details. Chanute criticized this choice.

7 Lilienthal’s wings and gliders German engineer Otto Lilienthal studied birds and lift shapes in wind 20 years of experiments, often with brother Gustav Wrote book Birdflight as the Basis of Aviation. Made hang gliders Flew times Became famous and an inspirational figure

8

9 Hargrave’s wings, kites, and engines Retired in Sydney Ran many creative diverse experiments starting in 1884  Drawn to flapping-wings designs  Also made innovative engines  Box kites showed layered wings were stable and had lift Often made small models or designs without building. Devices often did not work right the first time but he moved on to new inspirations. Did not patent. Published hundreds of findings Chanute: “If there be one man.... who deserves to succeed in flying through the air” – it is Hargrave.

10 Samuel Langley's technology choices Professor in Pittsburgh, then Director of Smithsonian Institution in DC His 1896 powered gliders went over half a mile Decides that for safety: aircraft must be intrinsically stable, and pilot must sit up  craft must be rigid and strong  innovatively, makes strong frame from steel tubing  much heavier than a glider; needs strong engine for lift So he gets the best engine made, to that time, for its weight. (Balzer-Manly engine)

11 Langley’s aerodrome Resulting aircraft is heavy, expensive, housed with difficulty  Steel materials  Large wings  Powerful engine  Cost ~$50,000 Hard landings; lands on water => can't try twice easily Operator is not too useful, like rocket, unlike glider Langley's demonstrations are big, sometimes public In key demonstrations in Oct & Dec 1903 it crashes early Editorials attack Embarrassed trustees asked him to stop research But it was designed like a modern passenger jet

12 Wilbur and Orville Wright No college degrees No interest in engineering/academic careers Ran bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio, US Starting in 1899 read from Langley and Chanute Corresponded actively with Chanute Good tool makers and users. Have a workshop. Generally crafted each piece. Collaborated intensely.

13 Wrights' technology choices Focused on wing shape, propellers, and control mechanism Built craft as kites, then gliders Did not attach an engine until Materials light & cheap, wood & canvas pilot lays flat  less drag intrinsically unstable, like a bicycle Pilot controlled that by hip movements which pulled wires to warp (twist) wing tips to turn glider This invented piloting skill had no future

14

15 Wrights’ wings and propellers Wrights’ wind tunnel carefully tested to make air flow smooth Their balance device measured lift precisely They tested many wings systematically and came to an ideal design for their craft. What’s a propeller for an aircraft? Standard idea: like a water propeller, it would pushes air back. Having studied wings, Wrights’ experiment with propellers that have a cross section like a wing, with lift in forward direction This produces 50% more pulling power from a given engine! This idea lasts

16 This evidence is selected Many other experimenters and publishers would be worth mentioning if time permitted: Alphonse Penaud Horatio Phillips Hiram Maxim James Means Alberto Santos-Dumont Richard Pearse Many others Paper has the beginnings of a list of what was available in the public domain.

17 Two tentative lessons Inventors and experiments were highly idiosyncractic. 1. Goals and “progress” were subjective. Most of these early aircraft developers shared designs and information, including Langely and the Wrights. Chanute, Hargrove, and others encouraged it. At a few points there was tension: - Chanute criticizes Ader for keeping secrets - Langley keeps secret wing design after Chanute shares it anyway. - Wrights stop sharing as much in late Each time, the experimenters thought they’d made some kind of breakthrough.

18 Possible assumptions for micro model These individuals (“tinkerers”) are special: Assume there are tinkerers with exogenous motivation. No clear market product is identifiable, so R&D doesn’t seem justified: Assume total technological uncertainty. Then tinkerers would agree to share information, specialize, and coordinate. Supporting the information network is a specialty, e.g. of Chanute. Technological moderators help the process along. If a tinkerer has a certain insight, past the technological uncertainty He may quit the network to do it, make a product or start a firm.

19

20

21 Conclusion Airplane case makes plain certain aspects of these individuals and networks. It seems relevant to personal computer hobbyists open source software projects A model of this kind could be useful to describe or account for engineering “skunkworks” in organizations scientific advances differences between societies in speed of technology development

22 Motivation of the Experimenters: Why Would Individuals Do This? To start manufacturing company To get revenues from patented technology To establish oneself professionally  (Lerner and Tirole, 2002) To earn research funding (Langley, from War and Smithsonian) To earn respect for their contribution To win a competition To grapple with interesting problems or solve them

23 Conclusion Why would individuals do this? Start manufacturing company Get revenues from patent Get hired as engineer Lerner and Tirole (2002, and repeatedly) Research funding (Langley, from War dept and Smithsonian) Prestige of accomplishment in contributing To grapple with interesting problems. Or, the concept is so cool! They want the problem solved -- that is, they want to live in a world in which they can fly through the air (that is, to change their world, not their place in it) "Our experiments have been conducted entirely at our own expense. At the beginning we had no thought of recovering what we were expending, which was not great..." Wrights, How We Invented the Airplane, [1953] p. 87 "I am an enthusiast, but not a crank in the sense that I have some pet theories as to the construction of a flying machine. I wish to avail myself of all that is already known and then if possible add my mite to help on the future worker who will attain final success." -- Wilbur Wright, 1899 letter to Smithsonian Institution Other airplane; computer; open source people express this thought. Tentative formal assumption: Relevant individuals ("players") have utility functions that support this activity. - tentatively treat motivation of innovators as exogenous - testable implications of different utility functions? psychic joy of experimenting; or research salary; or imagined future payoff.

24 Secrecy? Not usually Books by Lilienthal (1889) and Chanute (1894) Journal periodicals in France, Britain, US Wrights collected info from Smithsonian and Weather Bureau (location) Chanute actively corresponds with experimenters, researchers  technology moderator Wilbur’s speech to Society of Western Engineers, 1901 Journal publications in 1901 in England and Germany Scientific American article about them in Visit of Spratt and Herring on tip back problem Langley gets secretive about his wing design Wrights get secretive starting late 1902 Modeling ideas: Sharing institution exists already Innovator chooses sharing vs. secrecy Players may be open (prestige; joy of sharing; desire for progress) Public pool of information is productive But if their device approaches some threshold (technical success or profitability), they close their connections to the network. (Homebrew and Apple example) This creates an industry. Then competition stimulates progress.

British engineers founded Aeronautical Society of Great Britain Crouch, p. 30; Anderson p F.H. Wenham highlight superiority of long narrow wings over short wide ones in generating lift (though this is sometimes forgotten, later) Anderson, p Britain publication of Annual Reports of Aeronautical Society starts Crouch, p Moy scale effects in aerodynamics established Anderson, p Paris beginning of publication of L'Aeronaut Crouch, p F.H.Wenham and John Browning developed wind tunnel Crouch, p. 31 History

Wenham found that the center of pressure (center of lift) tended to be near the leading edge of a wing -- a fact sometimes forgotten, later Anderson, p. ?? 1871 Alphonse Penaud upward sloping tail, for stability; center of pressure....; understood it; had theory, created standard. Anderson, pp du Templepowered hop in France 1875 Octave Chanute discovers, on trip to Europe, that European engineers treat airplane as possible Crouch, p Penaud cambered wing dihedral angle 2 degrees. Was on track to further success, but committed suicide P 37 Anderson 1883 Osborne Reynolds analysis of "laminar" (smooth) versus turbulent air flows Anderson, p Horatio PhillipsAnalysis of wing shapes

Mozhaiskipowered hop. Russia France beginning of publication of the Revue de l'Aeronautique Crouch, p Lilienthal published Birdflight as the Basis of Aviation 1890 Clement Ader Piloted, steam-engine-powered airplane, the Eole; no controls; wings moved like a bat's Anderson, p Jan Chanute Publication of Progress in Flying MachinesStoff, p. iv 1894 Hiram Maxim Flying machine Anderson, p Chanute & Herring adapted Pratt truss to gliders Stoff,, p. iv

Chanute/He rring two-surface, double decker wings Jakab,47; Samuel Langley steam-powered unpiloted one minute flight over Potomac Anderson, p Arnot / Herring Indiana gliders Crouch, p Langley and others internal combustion gasoline engine determined to be superior to steam enginesfor lightweight power Anderson, p Wrights wing warping for control of rolling motionJakab, p Mar Wrights wilbur wright contacts chanute; ww's already studied ProgressStoff, p. vi 1901 Oct Wrights calculation of smeaton coefficientir wind tunnel, and wing tests, and lilienthal calculations Jakab, circa p. 130

29 Conclusion Collective Invention Model:  Individuals are motivated by utility functions  Sometimes unknown reasons for joining the network  Discoveries are random Key choice – share their findings or not? Octave Chanute and Samuel Langley – co-inventors of the Wright airplane or not? How much of the invention X is due to its inventor?

30 Secrecy: When Does it Start? Books by Lilienthal (1889) and Chanute (1894) Journal periodicals in France, Britain, US Wrights collected info from Smithsonian and Weather Bureau (location) Chanute actively corresponds with experimenters, researchers Wilbur’s speech to Society of Western Engineers, 1901 Publications in 1901 Visit of Spratt and Herring on tip back problem Langley gets secretive about his wing design Wrights get secretive starting late 1902

Balzer & Manly high powered light engine (not known or available to Wrights) Anderson, p May Wrights Wrights blade-element propeller (50% more efficient than contemporaries; apparently highest recorded to that time). Anderson, p Dec Langley / Manly Public demonstration of aerodrome; crashes before full flight 1903 Dec Wrights self-powered sustained flight; takeoff and landing at same level 1904 Wrights testing grounds on Huffman Prarie

32 End of Information Sharing If the activity succeeds, it becomes an industry – competitive “commercial production and sale of goods” The network loses importance, shrinks, breaks up Examples:  Wrights in late 1902 clamp down; disagree with Chanute. Langley's wings  Later: Apple computer Model assumption: Network will self-destruct if there is enough success Then industry players have private intellectual capital and don't share R&D.

33

34 Wrights’ Propeller Propeller:  “a mechanical device that rotates to push against air or water  A machine for propelling an aircraft or boat, consisting of a power-driven shaft with radiating blades that are placed so as to thrust air or water in a desired direction when spinning.” Wrights invented propellers that delivered 50% more pulling power from a given engine!