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