1

An inventive commons:the invention of 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

Convening Cultural Commons conference

Sept 23, 2011

��

Fixed wing shapes

Wrights’ wind tunnel & wing models, 1902-3

Penaud, ~1872

Lilienthal 1870s-1880s

Cayley, 1799

Trying to make a mechanical bird

Mouillard 1881

Hargrave 1891 model ornithopterAder’s 1890 EoleFull size; wings

flap, powerful engine

Le Bris 1868 AlbatrossWas pulled by a horse; took off from the

cart.

4

Stacked wings

Chanute-Herring glider, 1896

Stringfellow 1868 triplane model

Phillips multiplane, 1904

Hargrave box kites 1893

Maxim’s motorized aeroplane 1894

Big powered craft

Santos-Dumont

1901

Langley 1901

6

Getting in the air: Otto Lilienthal

1890s: Flew inspirational hang gliders – tried to control in air

“. . . to soar upward and to glide, free as the bird” -- Otto Lilienthal, 1889

7

Parallels to open source software

� 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

Relevant clubs and societies – new data coming

Key early societies in Paris (1864,1872), London (1866), Berlin (1881) then smaller/local

Key Exhibitions and Conferences: 1868, 1893, 1904, others

Focused on ballooning – “aerial navigation” builds on that infrastructure

Aeronautics-related clubs and societies

Brockett / Smithsonian Institution (1910) is aBibliography of Aeronautics

13,800 bibliography entries

large sample of data

Publications

Balloon, aerostat, dirigible, ZeppelinVoyage(ascent)

Bird (animal, fish, insect)

Scientific (research, theory, meteorology, upper atmosphere)

ExperimentMeasurement(duration, altitude,

temperature, weight)

Motor (engine, propulsion) PropellersMachine

Navigation (control, steerable)

WingsKite/glider (gliding, soaring)

Periodicals listed in

Brockett (1910)

L'Aérophile,Paris, 1893- 1393Zeitschrift für Luftschiffahrt, Berlin/Vienna 1882- 1101Illustrierte Aëronautische Mitteilungen,Strasbourg 1065L'Aéronaute(Paris) 822Wiener Luftschiffer Zeitung(Vienna) 623Bollettino della Societa Aeronautica Italiana(Rome) 535Aeronautics(London, 1907-) 441Aëronautical Journal, (London, 1897-) 415Scientific American, (New York) 383La Conquête de l'Air(Brussels) 351

What did they

talk about?

There are many duplicates and reprints in the data; haven’t standardized this.

Many of these articles are online

Wilbur Wright’s very first letter to Chanute in 1900 says “the apparatus I intend to employ . . . is very similar to [your] "double-deck" machine [of] 1896-7 . . . ” (. . . with these changes)

Chanute’s replies: “I believe like yourself that no financial profit is to be expected from such investigations for a long while to come.”

11

Successful examples were copies

Chanute-Herring glider - 1896 Wright brothers 1900 kite, 1901-2 glider

Ferber, 1902, copies Wrights based on report from Chanute

�

Pratt truss

�

�

�

�

�

Was it an information commons?

Yes� Designs were copied

� Publications copied

� Tinkerers in contact� Standards did arise

� Rivalry was secondary

No� No sharp boundary (of common resource)

� Usual commons issues are minor� congestion, free riding, conflict, overuse,

pollution (Hess and Ostrom intro, 2006)

� No global formal rules� Many clubs or journals had rules

� No strong collective action; little governance, sanctions, monitoring.

� “Soft law” / context

Note relevance of: uncertainty; opportunism; support

1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910

Wrights to Chanute 7 28 29 22 24 24 33 16 7 3 4

Chanute to Wrights 5 30 34 25 29 37 37 19 9 4 2

Transition conflict, and paradigm shift

Octave Chanute:

A commons personWright brothers

It’s industry time

Letters and telegrams between Octave Chanute and the Wright brothers

Startup industry

In 1907-1909

• Publications skyrocket

• Patent counts probably do too, 1907

• Big public demonstrations, 1908-1909• Even bigger prizes than before, tens of thousands of viewers

• Legitimate to start firm (Hannan, Carroll et al 1995)

• Flow of new firms appears: 1908

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1900 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916

Nu

mber o

f e

ntran

ts

Number of entrant firms by year of first investment(Sources: Gunston 1993 and 2005; Smithsonian Directory)

Britain

France

Germany

US

Italy

Russia

Austria-Hungary

All others

1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910

010

2030

4050

60

Year

Cou

nt o

f Pub

licat

ions

Aeronautically-relevant patents by country1850-1909

BritainGermanyFranceUS

We have useful micro models of agents: Firms, investors, employees, R&D, households, consumers, governments, bureaucrats, principal-agent, managers, employees, families, etc.

But these characters didn’t bring us the airplane.

Need models of self-motivated non-profit “tinkerers” (scientists) who sometimes generate these behaviors:

• Offering information to commons• Sometimesavoidingintellectual property institutions

• Standardizing technology, modularizing, specializing• Evangelizing the field and technology

Relevant models/phrasings: user innovation, distributed innovation, collective invention, peer production, open source innovation

If goal is to change the world, open-source behavior can be “rational”(Meyer 2007)

Microeconomics issue

Conclusions so far

� Overhang of technological uncertainty is extreme� No firms do this “research” (hopeless, useless, dangerous)

� Independent tinkerers link up� network/commons � progress

� Clubs, publications, visits, letters

� Lead to standard info/platform in mid 1890s

� They copy previous work � relevant to open source software and other cases

� Their motivation is mostly intrinsic or altruistic� To fly! To change the world so others can fly; or, the challenge

� Entrepreneurial people and era was very different� The experts of 1899 did not become industrialists ten years later

17

Motivations of experimenters

Why do this?

� 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

Can measure participation of people and institutions• Publications in bibliography

• Patents

• References in combined index from historical books (ex post)

• References in Chanute’s book

• References in letters (Wrights and Chanute)

• Participation in startup firms

� Can see what is happening in a commons

� And infer what experiences, motivations, and institutions set up an airplane industry

Future work: More evidence

19

Communication institutions referred to

in histories

pagereferences

distinctinstances

Clubs, society, or association 219 37

Journals, periodicals, newspapers, or magazines, 131 39

Company 75 35

Exhibition , prize, trophy, award, contest, medal, or meet 67 18

book (fact or fiction) 47 21

university or school 46 19

lab, museum, institute, observatory, zoo, or fund 46 16

military institution 45 7

conference 14 2

These rough counts come from 12 combined historical book indexes about the invention of the

airplane, and exclude references to events after 1909.

These institutions serve technical communication. There was much free revealing of tech.

20

Development of the airplane(heavier than air, with fixed wings)

1800 Fixed-wing airplane concept/designs of George Cayley1860s and on French and British clubs and journals start up

It’s a niche activity – maybe hopeless, useless, and/or dangerousPublications on this topic do not refer much to prior work

1890s Public glider flights of Otto Lilienthal1894 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 patent1908-9 Public demonstrations of modern airplanes; an industry arises

21

Chanute’s 1894 overview Progress in Flying Machinesrefers 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.

Experimenterlocation

(background)

Pages referring to,

Chanute (1894)

Publications listed,

Brockett (1910)

Maxim Britain (US) 33 25+

Lilienthal Germany 31 50+

Pénaud France 22 12

MouillardAlgeria, Egypt

(Fr)21 6

Hargrave Australia (Br) 19 25+

Moy Britain 19 10

Le Bris France 17 0

Langley US 16 40+

Wenham Britain 15 10+

Phillips Britain 14 3

Chanute US (France) * 50+

22

Communication by letters and visits

between experimenters

Source: McFarland (1953)

Chanute visited with Mouillard, Langley, Santos-Dumont, Ferber, Huffaker, Herring, Maxim

He hosted an international conference on “aerial navigation” in 1893.

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 1896. (Schwipps book) Had visits from many.

1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910

Wrights to Chanute 7 28 29 22 24 24 33 16 7 3 4Chanute to

Wrights 5 30 34 25 29 37 37 19 9 4 2

Letters and telegrams between Octave Chanute and the Wright brothers

23

Wright brothers as open-sourcers 1900-1902First 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 plansfor 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 greatfor one man alone and unaided to solve in secret.”

“the apparatus I intend to employ . . . is very similarto the "double-deck" machine with which the experiments of yourself and Mr. Herring were conducted in 1896-7.”

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

24

1910 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.

25

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 wingsdraw 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

26

(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 interest in a problem (a0), 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

Chuhachi Ninomiya

� Loved kites ; studied birds and flying insects

� Made model glider in 1891-94 and 1898-1908 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?

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

29

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910

050

010

0015

00

Year

Cou

nt o

f pub

licat

ions

in B

rock

ett (

1910

)

Jump in publications in early industry period

Location of publisher # publications

Paris 4303

Berlin 1718

London 1342

New York 1154

Wien 866

Strasbourg 859

Roma 573

Bruxelles 391

Glenville, Ohio 295

Washington DC 228

Nova Scotia 248

St Louis 160

Milano 156

Philadelphia 117

St Petersbourg 101

Boston 100

Stuttgart 49

Hamburg 21

Perhaps 5000-6000 are in French3000-5000 in English

2500+ in German

Many refer to balloons, dirigeables, etcCan categorize by topic/title in future

New firms: preliminary findings

� Few of the founders, investors, designers in the 1908-1916 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

31

Microeconomic model (Meyer, 2007)

Imagine self-motivated tinkerers making progresson some project They invest time, effort, money into experiments

Let two tinkerers’ experiments add value to one another’s projectsSay 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 specializeto avoid duplication� They’d standardize onmodular 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 / evangelistto expand the network and reduce duplicative efforts.� A tinkerer might change if the technological uncertainty lifts

32

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

� authors/evangelists are another kind of specialist tinkererOctave Chanute, 1894: “The writer’s object in preparing these articles was threefold:

1. To satisfy himself whether . . . men might reasonably hope eventually to fly . . .

2. 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.

33

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

34

1903-6 Wrights exit open-source “network”

1899-1902: 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 1906.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 name First name Page references

Wright Wilbur and Orville *

Chanute Octave 215

Lilienthal Otto 167

Blériot Louis 144

Langley Samuel 135

Curtiss Glenn 131

Stringfellow John 117

Cayley George 100

Voisin Gabriel 80

Smithsonian Institution 80

Herring Augustus 76

Patents 65

Manly Charles 62

Bell Alexander Graham 61

Zahm Albert 60

Penaud Alphonse 53

Ader Clément 50

Maxim Hiram 49

Means James 44

Brearey Frederick W. 44

Wenham Francis Herbert 41

Hargrave Lawrence 39

Mouillard Louis 36

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 1909.

Have not counted “brothers” well.

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 booksabout the airplane’s invention

37

Imitation: Wright brothers copy Chanute’s

design, 1900Wilbur 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)