1 Connecting to networks: Inventing the Airplane and its Industry by Peter B. Meyer, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics * Findings and views are those of the author, not the BLS Asia-Pacific Economic and Business History Conference Berkeley 20 Feb 2011

2 Development of the airplane (heavier than air, with fixed wings) 1800 Fixed-wing airplane concept/designs of George Cayley 1860s and on French and British clubs and journals start up It’s a niche activity – maybe hopeless, useless, and/or dangerous Publications on this topic do not refer much to prior work 1890s Public glider flights of Otto Lilienthal 1894 Book by Octave Chanute surveys issues and experiments Publications then refer more often to prior work. Many designs were shared and copied. “open source innovation” Many “firsts.” 1903 Wright brothers’ key powered-glider flight, 1906 patent Public demonstrations of modern airplanes; an industry arises

3 Octave Chanute His 1894 book Progress in Flying Machines, surveyed experiments, devices, theories Communicated with experimenters and made gliders Among ingenious fancies of the Chinese is their bird kite, fig. 71, the frame of which made elastic. The thin paper attached to the wings moves under the action of the wind and simulates the flapping of the wings. This kite is sometimes 3 ft. in length. Chanute-Herring glider

4 1860s-80s studied bird wings and experiments 1889: published Birdflight as the Basis of Aviation : Flew inspirational hang gliders Otto Lilienthal Why? “... to soar upward and to glide, free as the bird” -- Otto Lilienthal, 1889

Bibliography of Aeronautics Brockett/Smithsonian Institution Smithsonian expanded director Langley’s collection Bibliography has over 13,400 items, listed on 940 pages. It was scanned, digitized and made public online Archive.org ; also credits to Cornell Univ library, U of Michigan library, and Carnegie-Mellon (posner.cmu.edu) with many scanning/OCR errors. I’m fixing those and making a database. For most publications we have authors, date, language of the title, location of publication. Work continues Chanute’s 1894 book and this 1910 book are my major sources here.

6 Chanute’s 1894 overview Progress in Flying Machines refers to or quotes more than 190 persons These are counts of pages referring to the individual. The people are diverse and international. Later technological histories treat these people as central. Their findings were mostly public. Experimenter location (background) Pages referring to, Chanute (1894) Publications listed, Brockett (1910) MaximBritain (US)3325+ LilienthalGermany3150+ PénaudFrance2212 Mouillard Algeria, Egypt (Fr) 216 HargraveAustralia (Br)1925+ MoyBritain1910 Le BrisFrance170 LangleyUS1640+ WenhamBritain1510+ PhillipsBritain143 ChanuteUS (France)*50+

7 Aeronautic clubs and societies Organizations often centered on ballooning and included anything aeronautical Key early ones were in Paris (1852,1864,1872) and London (1866) Several published regular journals. First German one 1881.

8 Aero publications per year up to 1900 (Brockett, 1910)

Asia-Pacific experimenters and technologies

Chinese and Malay kites In Brockett bibliography, 6 titles refer to Chinese or Malay kites In Chanute (1894) we see a number of references:

Chuhachi Ninomiya Loved kites ; studied birds and flying insects Made model glider in and in Japan Tried to fund the building of a larger craft Not clear to me what he knew of the Western literature / progress Not mentioned in my other sources “Beetle” and “Crow” models, c.1893?

12 Lawrence Hargrave Retired young just south of Sydney Designed aircraft and engines Box kite findings c Worked alone Needed machining specialists Presented papers in Australia 25+ publications in bibliography Did not patent Corresponded extensively Took a long visit to Britain

Richard Pearse Farmer near Timaru, New Zealand Flew a powered glider in 1903  Bamboo structure; ailerons  Made internal combustion engines  Alone! He’d read some of the literature Is not mentioned in biblio

14 Transition to startup industry Wrights’ first powered, controlled fixed-wing flight Dec, 1903

Aircraft-relevant patent filings jump in 1907 US and German data only ; more and better is coming sources: Simine Short and Gary Bradshaw (for US); Bernd Lukasch and Otto-Lilienthal Museum (for Germany)

16 Jump in publications in early industry period Location of publisher# publications Paris4303 Berlin1718 London1342 New York1154 Wien866 Strasbourg859 Roma573 Bruxelles391 Glenville, Ohio295 Washington DC228 Nova Scotia248 St Louis160 Milano156 Philadelphia117 St Petersbourg101 Boston100 Stuttgart49 Hamburg21 Perhaps are in French in English in German Many refer to balloons, dirigeables, etc Can categorize by topic/title in future

17 Notes: Most make airplanes; some make engines, propellers, other parts, gliders, or models; some are schools for pilots; some give exhibitions. Some failed quickly. Counts do not include nonprofit, government, military, nor hobbyists. Numbers of entrant firms by year of first investment New database, sources mainly: Gunston (1993, 2005) and Smithsonian Directory; In 1908, an industry bursts into existence

Conclusions Interest in flying machines was not just local  Technology uncertain ; no R&D  Interest, opportunity, capability  progress Connecting together  faster progress  By clubs, publications, visits, letters  An “information network” sparsely over the globe  Asia-Pacific experimenters struggled at distance Technologies ease this – airplane, telephone, radio Stark example

19 Languages of aero publications French was most common especially in early years regarding ballooning English most common in last years, associated with kites/gliders I assume Also Russian, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian Source: Brockett (1910) 15-20% missing from here

Correspondence To and from Lilienthal brothers ~150 letters Chanute-Mouillard ~160 letters Chanute-Wright brothers 1900s >145 letters Much more is in archives They did mention inefficiencies in communication – missing letters, delays, overlaps in the mail

21 Did experimenters copy earlier designs? This is key to the “open source process” idea. Yes, they copied. A tail on an aircraft was sometimes called the “Penaud tail” for Alphonse Penaud’s models of the early 1870s. A tail can help with stability and control. Long thin fixed wings were found to give more lift than square or round wings. These are imitated, e.g. from Wenham’s 1871 wind tunnel experiments Stacked wings draw from particular designs: Wenham, 1866 ; Stringfellow, 1868 ; and box kite experiments of Hargrave, 1890s. That leads to the biplane structure. Hargrave box kite, 1890s Penaud model, circa 1872 Cayley, 1799 – got much right but not wing shape

1900: Wilbur Wright’s first letter to Chanute says “the apparatus I intend to employ... is very similar to [your] "double-deck" machine [of] ” The Wrights use and upgrade that design for the next several years. 22 Imitation of earlier designs – key cases Chanute-Herring glider Wright brothers 1900 kite, glider, powered 1903

Imitation: More cases 1896: Pilcher couldn’t decide whether to make Lilienthal or Hargrave type biplane (Jarrett p 43) 1902: Ferber abandons his Lilienthal-type glider and makes a Wright-type one. (based on new information from Chanute). Ferber added an engine, before Wrights did!

24 Conclusions Airplanes were invented by tinkerers through open-source processes Much is documented! I’m making my counts and sources available Tinkerers networked increasingly 1860s to 1910  Clubs, societies, journals, other publications, patents Larger society doesn’t invest much or take it seriously We can identify specific important cases of imitation  Big experimental successes  Commercialization takes off then

Issues of interest What institutions support the activities that leads to the invention/industry? (taking its importance as known) Do the experimenters show “open source” behavior? What does the transition to industry look like? Methods question: How can we use a bibliography and historical narratives written after the fact to tell a unified quantitative story of innovation? I am developing databases of bibliographies of aeronautical publications and clubs patents from the 1860s to 1910 startup firms and their key people (founders, investors, designers) combined indexes from historical books about the airplane’s invention

26 Parallels to open source software and open-, user- or distributed- innovation Autonomous innovators (not hierarchy, not cult)... with various goals: Want to fly! ; Hope for recognition; Curious, interested in the problem ; Bring peace / make nation safe... who share technical info with public Authors, evangelists, organizers have valuable role  To welcome future tinkerers who could generate progress  To avoid duplicate efforts, thru standards and specialization  Chanute says this in his book intro, and in open-source software we see the same motivations  If their goal is to change the world, or to fly, open-source behavior is rational (Meyer 2007)

27 Deep issue: How can we use ex post evidence for innovation measures? historical narratives are very very much selected/crafted ex post after path dependence is established. Ex post, the relevant literature is what certain key persons have read We want also a model which is useful ex ante E.g. for identifying institutions that generate the invention Idea: build database of the indexes of historical narratives and extract some statistical information from these in regressions: Prob(reference in historical narrative H is to person/innovator I) = f( H and I are in same country, communicate through the same language, H is a biography of I, other factors I is important by other metrics or to this narrative)

: Aircraft patent filings became much more frequent, also publications rise in numbers Big public demonstrations occur  Tens of thousands saw a demonstration  Notably in Reims, France, Aug 1909 $40,000 in prizes offered  Implicit change in public mindset “legitimacy” – Hannan, Carroll et al (1995) Many new firms appear, 20+ per year

New firms: preliminary findings Few of the founders, investors, designers in the firms were experts/experimenters of the 1890s.  Maybe this is how open-source technologies are usually commercialized – by a new or different group  Change from technological uncertainty to feasible/investable tech  Are the authors of technical works different? Don’t know yet. Many founders had experience in manufacturing  Unlike the Wrights New firms spin off rapidly from earliest firms  Klepper (2009): corporate-genealogies in Detroit and Silicon Valley show very high local rates of spinoff; that’s how these places became central to cars and semiconductors

30 Motivations of experimenters Knowing now the most important ones, why do they do it? Would like to fly Curiosity, interest in the problem Prestige, recognition Belief in making world a better place Make one nation safer Nobody refers to expected profits “... A desire takes possession of man. He longs to soar upward and to glide, free as the bird...” -- Otto Lilienthal 1889 “The glory of a great discovery or an invention which is destined to benefit humanity [seemed] dazzling.... Enthusiasm seized [us] at an early age.” - Gustav Lilienthal

31 (1) R&D: investments which expect financial payback on average (2) Race to be first (space race; genome project) (3) Collective invention (Allen, 1983)  but those are (a) firms, (b) not paying costs to experiment (4) To earn income or wealth indirectly  Start company, or license patented invention  signal to employers; get hired as engineer (Lerner and Tirole, 2002) These do not apply well to airplane invention  We need a model of “tinkerers” (5) Network: a population of agents with i nterest in a problem (a 0 ), worthwhile opportunities (p), information flows between them (f)  experimentation and socially constructed “progress” No pool of information, or incentive structure, or technical measure of improvement. Alternative models of invention

32 Microeconomic model (Meyer, 2007) Imagine self-motivated tinkerers making progress on some project They invest time, effort, money into experiments Let two tinkerers’ experiments add value to one another’s projects Say they are not in competition because they cannot foresee a marketable product for now high “technological uncertainty”)  They’d agree to share findings with one another  They’d specialize to avoid duplication  They’d standardize on modular designs and tools (Market processes are not necessary for these effects)  They don’t bother with intellectual property (there’s no gain)  There is a role for an author / organizer / evangelist to expand the network and reduce duplicative efforts.  A tinkerer might change if the technological uncertainty lifts

33 Role for author / moderator / evangelist Chanute corresponded with, visited, introduced experimenters, and published book In model: A tinkerer’s best opportunity for progress may be editing, writing, speeches, evangelism  a uthors/evangelists are another kind of specialist tinkerer Octave Chanute, 1894: “The writer’s object in preparing these articles was threefold: 1. To satisfy himself whether... men might reasonably hope eventually to fly To save... effort on the part of experimenters trying again devices which have already failed. 3. To... render it less chimerical... to experiment with a flying machine....” Analogously: Lilienthal’s public demonstrations; Felsenstein at Homebrew; open source programmers Stallman, Torvalds, etc.

Analogues: numbers of auto companies (Hannan et al 1995) Numbers of synthetic dye companies and entry/exit (Murmann 2003)

35 Wright methods and inventions Wind tunnel with smooth air flow Tested many wings systematically Propeller invention: shaped like wings, with lift going forward This produces ~40% more pulling power. This design idea lasts to the present. They are skilled, precision-minded toolsmiths, in a workshop every day. They flew craft as kites and gliders both, many times No landing gear, no engine. Their piloting invention had to be learned, like on bicycle

36 Wright brothers as open-sourcers First letter to Chanute, May 13, 1900: “Assuming then that Lilienthal was correct...” [Wilbur explains what he will do differently.] “.... my object is to learn to what extent similar plans have been tested and found to be failures, and also to obtain such suggestions as your great knowledge and experience might enable you to give me. I make no secret of my plans for the reason that I believe no financial profit will accrue to the inventor of the first flying machine, and that only those who are willing to give as well as to receive suggestions can hope to link their names with the honor of its discovery. The problem is too great for one man alone and unaided to solve in secret.” “the apparatus I intend to employ... is very similar to the "double-deck" machine with which the experiments of yourself and Mr. Herring were conducted in ” Chanute’s reply May 17, 1900: “I believe like yourself that no financial profit is to be expected from such investigations for a long while to come.” Wrights’ 1900 glider

37 Characterizing that early literature When we look at those examples of the relevant literature developed before 1894 (relevant = guy is relevant later; and/or brockett cites him, and/or Chanute cites it) Tends not to have citations to earlier work. Characterizes one’s own experiments in some detail. Wise, 1850; Mouillard, 1881; Goupil, 1884; Lilienthal, 1889; Langley 1891; Means 1891 Did Montgomery also publish? He’s the right type bibliography by Tissandier, 1887 Thick with diagrams. Show some. Can find key terms in the titles?? Show graphs of growth and languages. Comment on which ones the wrights saw

38 Characterizing the literature Chanute (Means 1895, 1896, 1897; Banet-Rivet, 1898;.) langley often thick with diagrams Do we see glossaries yet? Portraits of aeronauts? Advice for the experimental craft builder What view do they take on flapping wings and balloons? How about the earlier stuff? Can we say that the kite people have split off at this point from balloon people and flapping-wings people? Are locations more or less likely to be in the title? Are the topics more sciency or experimental/technological?

39 Can we show Chanute’s references correlate to other metrics of technology contribution? Intensity of correspondence amongst the experimenters Frequency of publications Citations by later historians But not patenting frequency per experimenter I have 600+ aircraft patents from US and Germany up to I do not know of any that were licensed until the Wrights’ 1906 patent. And relatively few of these aeronautics patentees in the 19 th century were by Chanute’s referenced persons. Chanute, the Wrights, and aeronautical historians don’t much mention the patents.  Intellectual property was mostly irrelevant.  Tech advances came through open-source-like processes instead.

40 Systematic measures of innovators & innovations Measures can distinguish open source/distributed innovation from secret or intellectual-property-type innovation And the transition between them. I think the “airplane case” is at the open extreme before 1900 After 1909 it’s an industry where R&D matters.

Wrights exit open-source “network” : Wrights read everything they can, experiment with kites and gliders, visit, correspond, attend conferences, speak, publish. Late 1902: they become more secretive, apparently because of wing design success 1903: They filed for a patent on their control mechanism for the wings. Granted Then they started companies. Their secrecy and tight hold on patent rights lead to permanent conflicts with Chanute, Curtiss, and others. Wrights’ first powered, controlled fixed-wing flight Dec, 1903

References in histories books Last nameFirst namePage references WrightWilbur and Orville* ChanuteOctave215 LilienthalOtto167 Bl é riot Louis144 LangleySamuel135 CurtissGlenn131 StringfellowJohn117 CayleyGeorge100 VoisinGabriel80 Smithsonian Institution 80 HerringAugustus76 Patents 65 ManlyCharles62 BellAlexander Graham61 ZahmAlbert60 PenaudAlphonse53 Ader Cl é ment 50 MaximHiram49 MeansJames44 BreareyFrederick W.44 WenhamFrancis Herbert41 HargraveLawrence39 MouillardLouis36 These are coherent narratives with a variety of points of view. Sources: cross-national; in paper – 15 books so far. Not enough yet. Combining them all one should get a list of “ everyone ” who is important in this invention. Frequency of mention is a very rough measure of importance, ex post. Have not adjusted for nationality/language of author and publication. Have not excluded very well events after Have not counted “ brothers ” well.

43 Databases under development Bibliographies of aeronautical publications: Brockett (1910) lists 13,400 publications; can combine bibliographies by Tissandier (1887) and Dollfus (1975) with this one. Some patents from the U.S., Germany, and Britain. Combined indexes of historical books related to the invention of the airplane and the early industry. A database of hundreds of firms across the world which made or attempted to make fixed-wing aircraft or relevant supplies up to (Early versions are online at related_organizations) related_organizations

44 Communication institutions referred to in histories page references distinct instances Clubs, society, or association21937 Journals, periodicals, newspapers, or magazines,13139 Company7535 Exhibition, prize, trophy, award, contest, medal, or meet6718 book (fact or fiction)4721 university or school4619 lab, museum, institute, observatory, zoo, or fund4616 military institution457 conference142 These rough counts come from 12 combined historical book indexes about the invention of the airplane, and exclude references to events after These institutions serve technical communication. There was much free revealing of tech.

45 Can count contacts among experimenters They published thousands of articles They sent hundreds of letters to one another

1900: Wilbur Wright’s first letter to Octave Chanute says “the apparatus I intend to employ... is very similar to [your] "double-deck" machine [of] ” 46 Imitation of earlier designs Chanute-Herring glider, : Ferber copies the Wrights’ design based on info from Chanute. Earlier: We see imitation of the idea of a TAIL And long rectangular wings not square ones. And stacked wings (“biplanes”) Wright brothers kite, 1900, and glider

47 Imitation: Wright brothers copy Chanute’s design, 1900 Wilbur and Orville Wright ran a bicycle shop. They read up on gliders and experiment with kites and gliders. Motivation:“I am an enthusiast... I wish to... help on the future worker who will attain final success." -- Wilbur Wright, 1899, in letter to Smithsonian Wilbur writes Chanute, 1900: “I make no secret of my plans [because] I believe no financial profit will accrue to the inventor of the first flying machine, and that only those who are willing to give as well as to receive suggestions can hope to link their names with the honor of its discovery. The problem is too great for one man alone and unaided to solve in secret... The apparatus I intend to employ... is very similar to [yours].” Chanute reports on Wrights’ design to others and it is copied in 1902 – before they are famous! (Details Gibbs-Smith 1966)

48 Samuel Langley Professor, then Director of Smithsonian Institution in DC Tested lift and drag of planes on “whirling table” with 30-foot arm 1891: Published Experiments in Aerodynamics Wrote to and visited other experimenters Helps make aviation study legitimate 1896: Small powered gliders flew half a mile.

49 Communication by letters and visits between experimenters Letters and telegrams between Octave Chanute and the Wright brothers Wrights to Chanute Chanute to Wrights Source: McFarland (1953 ) Chanute visited with Mouillard, Langley, Santos-Dumont, Ferber, Huffaker, Herring, Maxim He hosted an international conference on “aerial navigation” in He corresponded with Hargrave, Mouillard, Montgomery, Cabot, Zahm, Kress, Wenham, Moy, Pilcher, Means, the Lilienthals, the Wrights, and others. Chanute exchanged at least 29 letters with Lawrence Hargrave and 26 with Francis Wenham. (Short, forthcoming) The Lilienthal brothers exchanged at least 12 letters with Chanute and dozens with other experimenters up to (Schwipps book) Had visits from many.

50 Alphonse Pénaud Box kite findings ~1894 Did not patent, on principle. Presented/published many papers in Australia Lawrence Hargrave Engineer in France Showed importance of tail on aircraft