"::(1) The french engines (40 HP) were superior, to those the Wright brothers claimed they built (less than 20 HP), being more powerful. (2) The brothers used the same catapult, the same extra boost, as in 1905 in all their witnessed flights performed in 1908. In conclusion more powerful engines were logically not needed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138   

Correct, they didn't ""need"" more powerful engines in 1908, but were probably glad to have them. However, your conclusion that therefore their statements about their previous flights are ""their own fiction"" is merely your own fanciful opinion, to which you're entitled, but which flies in the face of more than 100 years of published information and, yes, the WB own documentary proof, undisputed by all reputable historians. The 1-minute 45-second flight you mentioned was Wilbur's very first in France; about a month later he flew 90 minutes (after Orville had made hour-long flights in the U.S.).   
 I base all my affirmations on primary sources and not latter judgements. The so called reputed historians are just pro Wright Brothers propagandists who simply selected what they liked from primary sources and made up a nice story for the public, disregarding all evidence that throws serious doubts regarding the claimed 1903-1905 flights.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138   

Interestingly, the primary sources of which you're fond include voluminous amounts of documentation by the WB themselves of their work and their success. Try some affirmation based on that. You're right, though: propaganda does existnot in the writings of respected historians, but in misguided scribblings that sometimes show up on these pages.   

There is mention of the seven ""French"" engines of 1908 here:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f260.image.r=wright.langEN. They are intended to be delivered as  ""seven perfect copies"" of the model brought by the american aviator.   

 Strange picture - On Dec. 14, 1903, W. Wright flew with the two propellers on the left side of the plane, one of them not connected to the engine! 

The picture labeled LC-W86- 20, (see http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/wri/item/2001696254/ ) from the Library of Congress, shows W. Wright just after he landed the plane on Dec. 14, 1903, damaging the front-rudder (the canard double wing). The flight was powered but the airplane landed below the altitude where it had taken off. The strange thing about this picture is that the plane (see one of the large size versions of the image) has both propellers on its left side, the leftmost propeller being not connected to the engine. There is simply no logical explanation about this oddity. 

""There is simply no logical explanation about this oddity."" Indeed, a perfect description of the posts above and below. I recommend an optometrist.   
Ok. It was my mistake. I was mislead by the optical illusion the image contains. I should have studied the photography more carefully.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138   

 The 59 sec. flight made on Dec. 17, 1903 was a power assisted descending flight at best  

Another pi