Spotted at The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. Build something that flies = big problem. So the Wright Brothers broke it down into smaller chunks: 1) wings, 2) controls, and 3) propulsion. Nice historical precedent for the idea of dividing problems into smaller and smaller pieces until you’re able to digest them. “The Wright Brothers – Inventing a Flying Machine” offers more details.
dan
on 19 Dec 08This is awesome. This principle is timeless and this is a perfect example.
alsomike
on 19 Dec 08Another fundamental problem: not using a font with a real small caps.
Rich
on 19 Dec 08Isn’t the point that they considered all three problems as part of synthesizing a coherent whole rather than solving each in isolation and bolting them together? So it’s not exactly a divide-and-conquer approach to problem solving.
GeeIWonder
on 19 Dec 08I think the point is that they did NOT divide it into smaller chunks, but rather factored in the stability and propulsion with the wing design, due largely to their experience with bicycles (where, as anyone could tell you, stability is a function of propulsion). This is what allowed them to solve the big problem as a a whole when others could not solve individual ‘chunks’.
Also, I get really turned off by history told (adjusted, really) to suit whatever underlying morality is currently in fashion.
Then every time simplicity, or the free market. or the ‘Austrian school’, or the republcan party fails, we end up going through a mini-reformation, and all the standard stories get rewritten with the new fashionable interpretation emphasized.
We should know better.
GeeIWonder
on 19 Dec 08Damnit Rich, you beat me!
Don Schenck
on 19 Dec 08@GeeI, I don’t always agree with you … but you are smart as hell. Seriously.
GeeIWonder
on 19 Dec 08Praise from Caesar is praise indeed.
And if anyone always agrees with me, I haven’t met them yet.
JF
on 19 Dec 08Also, I get really turned off by history told (adjusted, really) to suit whatever underlying morality is currently in fashion. Then every time simplicity, or the free market. or the ‘Austrian school’, or the republcan party fails, we end up going through a mini-reformation, and all the standard stories get rewritten with the new fashionable interpretation emphasized.
I do agree with this.
ML
on 19 Dec 08I think the point is that they did NOT divide it into smaller chunks, but rather factored in the stability and propulsion with the wing design
Yeah, I see your point. It was a more comprehensive approach than others had taken.
That said, they did pick one of these problems and focused on it first (while still considering the final design)...
“They believed that the aerodynamic and propulsion problems would be comparatively easier to solve, so they first concentrated on how to maintain balance and control.”
Keith
on 19 Dec 08The Wrights were also the first aviation engineers to develop a wind tunnel to test their designs. So in that sense you could also argue that they created the concept of functional testing for iterative designs.
Keith Lang (not the same as above)
on 19 Dec 08I’m most of the way through an excellent audio book called “The Wright Brothers” by Fred C Kelly. This is the story of two men, who, without great funding or external support, steadfastly discovered not only the mechanisms that allowed a machine to fly reliably, but in the process had to replace the the existing inaccurate scientific tables with their own tests.
They built machines first and found them not to be behaving as expected, and then had to go back and create new tables of data on air pressure on curved surfaces etc. They build controllable kites first, and then manned gliders and then manned powered machines.
Time and time again, despite testing in an open field for months at a time, the press, and governments either were not interested, or disbelieving. And any press coverage they did get was wildly inaccurate. But they persisted, and steadfastly improved their design to be more stable and longer flying.
These guys were bicycle mechanics. Although well read, they were not the type to idly hypothesize. They got out and built the simplest thing that might work, and went from there.
(I’m not the same Keith as above btw)
web developers and design ireland
on 20 Dec 08divide and conquer, same goes for most programming
aris
on 20 Dec 08They were also keen cyclists financing their aviation stuff with profits from their cycle co. I guess balance is also paramount in cycling.
Martins
on 20 Dec 08Have you ever heard about Santos-Dummont?
Anonymous Coward
on 21 Dec 08@GeelWonder, you consistently post intelligent comments. Do you also have your own blog?
Don Schenck
on 23 Dec 08I met a woman who saw the Wright Brothers’ flying their plane!!!
This discussion is closed.