Note that "sufficient" aerodynamic science doesn't have to be very accurate; as Kelly Johnson said, "put enough thrust on an ironing board and it will fly." The bottleneck is thrust, getting a good, reliable, reasonably lightweight, sustainable source of it. Given the poor options available before 1900, that does put a premium on at least a good intuitive grasp of low-speed aerodynamics. This is why the Wrights followed glider development with keen interest. And also very systematically and extensively developed their own aerodynamic theory, finding none that was very good in academic science. They built their own windtunnel for instance. (Also, their own engine, finding nothing developed that was suitable).
Indeed. None of this would be impossible a half century earlier - or even a century earlier.
Unlikely, but certainly not impossible - although I imagine a longer gap between Wright level planes and say, 1920s (OTL) designs if you push it back more than half a century.
(snip.)
So even the Wrights didn't really have a proper scientific understanding of aerodynamics, nor did any of the early pioneers. Ludwig Prandtl generally gets the credit for putting aero theory on a really sound basis, and this wasn't until the pre-WWI 20th century. (There is a Briton who was coming to much the same conclusions as Prandtl around the same time or earlier but I'm forgetting his name at the moment, anyway no one was paying attention to him.)
Aside from sheer persistence and engineering know-how, I think the biggest theoretical success the Wrights drew from their researches that helped them win was a much improved theory of how propellers worked.
Agreed. Most of this is being able to figure out how exactly these things actually work well enough to design engines or wings that actually will produce the desired results - a grasp on theory or anything broader would be nice, but not at all essential.
Last edited: