FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1911
1911 - 0172.PDF
INVENTION VERSI A LETTER which we publish in this issue of FLIGHT, from a correspondent calling himself " British Brains," opens up a subject for well-nigh interminable discussion. It is not new—indeed our correspondent himself is not making his initial contribution to the discussion, which was originated by a letter published in FLIGHT of the 21st January last—this question of how far the inventor (as distinct from the flying man) is entitled to look for direct help from the wealthy philanthropist. On the face of it, " British Brains," may appear to be perfectly right in his deduction that the giving of large prizes for aerial competition is not in consonance with the best and most economical interests of the science of development. That is a prima facie view which may seem to hold water until the theory is carefully examined. Inventors of the radical type in question are almost always idealists who look for the shortest of short cuts to absolute perfection, but more often than not they have very little basic knowledge of mechanics or of practical engineering. They start with a full appreciation of what is the ultimate goal of attainment but with very little realisation of the pitfalls to be encountered. Once in a while, the inventor happens to be right; and once in a while this radical type of inventor turns out to be the genius that he deems himself. But that is in one case out of a thousand. The rest of the story is one of a miserable display of inexperience and ignorance, and one of bitter disappointment which is writ only too large across the archives of the Patent Office. In the history of the world's progress very little in the way of radical innovation has been achieved by the direct road, if we may call it that. Progress has been attained by quiet evolution rather than by sudden intuition. Glancing for a moment at the record of aviation itself, it will be found that this general principle holds as good as it does in most other cases. Dynamic flight came to the outside world suddenly ; but it was after many long years of experiment and research ; and so the advocates of the inventive, or as we prefer to call it the intuitive school are not entitled, as might at first sight be supposed, to say that here is an argument in their favour. The general principles of initial dynamic flight have been very well understood up to the point when only actual flight could tell any more, for a greater number of years than we can safely affirm without the book. In fact, the solution of the main problem of flight has chiefly been of recent times that of a power plant sufficiently light in relationship to its power developing capabilities. That power plant is now available, but even it did not arrive suddenly and as the result of a revolutionary discovery of a laboratory expert or an inventor with no practical knowledge of the mechanics of the motor. The result has come about through a process of evolution which began long before Gottlieb Daimler made his first cumbrous and heavy petrol engine. Gradually and painfully the motor of to-day underwent alteration and scaling down in weight—as a result of workshop and laboratory and open-air experience and experiment—until gradually a hundredweight or so per horse-power came down to a half, a quarter, an eighth, and each three pounds of weight is now deemed quite a feasible figure. Now, long before the Wrights made their first successful essays in the air it was known by specialists that as soon as the power plants of to-day came to fruition the initial problem of dynamic flight was solved. Applying to that period the arguments of the " subsidies for inventors " MARCH 4, 1911 ? ACHIEVEMENT. school of to-day, it would then only have needed that a wealthy philanthropist should have come forward with the money for research, and years ago would have been reached the successes of the last couple of years. Also in proof of the fallacy of this line of reasoning may be taken the development of any other mechanical process or movement. The steamship, the locomotive, the printing press, and to come nearer home still the motor car. All have had their crude beginnings, and all of them have developed gradually in accord with the laws of evolution which govern such things. All, moreover, in their initial forms have been condemned by the bulk of those we have termed the radical inventor, and year after year has passed without their pet ideal mechanisms ousting those which have been gradually evolved. Why, then, should we be asked to think that the flying machine is likely to reach perfection by any other road. To come to the question of prizes for aviators, to which some correspondents seem most strongly to object, there is a query to be propounded which to our mind contains the crux of the whole matter. Will any of the critics seriously aver that if the money which has gone into the pockets of the "contemptible prize- snatchers " (we quote from our correspondent's letter) could have been allocated instead to the direct assistance of laboratory research, aviation would stand where it does as a practical achievement ? When a convincing answer in the affirmative is obtained we, for our own part, shall no doubt be able to see eye to eye with them. But until then we must still hold that for the present the existing system of prize-giving is much better calculated to arrive at practical results—not only because it seems to be the only one that will induce the prize-giver to step forward, but also because it constitutes a potent incentive to inventor, designer, and manufacturer as well as to mere " prize-snatcher." On the other hand, we should like to make it perfectly clear that we have every sympathy for the real inventor who is no mere poser or crank—even though he be of the somewhat ill-equipped and " radical" sort. We fully agree that everything possible should be done to assist him in his work, even if only 1 in 10,000 of his inventions proved to be of real use. One trouble is that far larger sums of money are apt to be required for development than any inventor seems able to imagine, while another is that the average inventor never will believe in the bond fides of any other experts who may be deputed to investigate the matter impartially, but who see cause then to express doubts. Apart from that we are not at all sure that even the painstaking and systematic type of inventor—like we believe " British Brains " himself to be—has any very real grievance in the matter, since we ourselves and others are always willing and able to give publicity to all likely notions \ and if then he can satisfy those scientific experts of whom " B. B." speaks in his letter, he can rely upon all the financial and commercial aid that he wants—thanks chiefly to the existence of such prizes as those that he seems now to think can do him no good. Adequate initial protection in the chief Patent Offices is not such a very expensive item, after all said and done. Finally, too, the inventor might remember that the value of any particular prize to him is limited to its monetary amount, whereas the industrial concern that wins it can afford to spend many times its face value in the work of commercial development so vital to himself. 174
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
