Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:20, 15 February 2024

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 17, 2010.

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project. Smithsonian Institution High‑importance This article is within the scope of Smithsonian Institution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Smithsonian InstitutionWikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian InstitutionTemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Kitty Hawk, alternate or original name?

This image, used on the page, includes a note from Orville Wright which indicates that he is calling the plane Kitty Hawk. It is clickable for a larger image. Was Kitty Hawk the name that the Wright's used for this plane and, if so, did they also name it, then or later, the Wright Flyer or was that a name used by others? Here is an article which includes, near the bottom, evidence that the plane was called the Kitty Hawk. Seems enough to include it as an alternate name, but is there information that it should be the official name with Wright Flyer being the common name? The Smithsonian includes Kitty Hawk Flyer as an alternate name (click 'long description'), but Orville's note doesn't include the word 'Flyer'. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The "Here is an article..." link above has a photo with the "Kitty Hawk" name displayed, would that be copyable for the page? Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The two photos (this page, and the truck with big sign in the wright.edu article) would be considered primary sources. But they seem to provide some support for applying the name "Kitty Hawk" to the plane. As a more general comment, I think the first sentence of any article should avoid, as much as possible, including a variety of different names (and pronunciations and linguistic versions) for the topic. I prefer that such additional identifiers be put at the end of the opening paragraph. Policy/Guidelines support that idea--of not stuffing the lead sentence with such material, making it hard to read. DonFB (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good format. The Smithsonian reference seems like the key one we presently have for the Kitty Hawk name (and Orville's note seems the icing on the cake). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, the airandspace.si.edu article is good secondary source. DonFB (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking again at the initial naming sentence (which I've edited for brevity) its placement seems fine as it contains no pronunciation and is brief enough not to confuse readers or their topic comprehension. It may actually read awkwardly moving those to the end of the first paragraph, and could inhibit reading flow from the first to the second paragraph. What wording are you envisioning, maybe I'm missing it and you have a good sentence in mind. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to state my preference as a general principle. I envisioned simply moving all the secondary names to the paragraph end, beginning: "The airplane is also known as...." I almost did, but decided I can live with its present form. Those kinds of ledes are a pet peeve, and I always worry a little that another editor coming along will see the multiple names up front and decide to add another, and pretty soon the lede becomes a big speed bump right at the start of the article. Several Policies/Guidelines urge not stuffing a lede sentence with multiple names, pronouncers, etc., and as a reader of the encyclopedia myself, I couldn't agree more. On a great many articles, however, those recommendations are honored in the breach. Here is one that was so bad as to be laughable: DonFB (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

sol (smiling out loud and almost lol) at that article before your edit. I've had the same reaction to many other articles which overrun the first sentence with similar, but no doubt not as extreme, examples as that one. After reading that one, and thanks for pointing it out, I may use it on my talk page intro, the first sentence here seems like a walk in the park and doesn't seem like it would hinder the word flow for too many readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

THANK YOU, Randy, for highlighting this issue. And for these initial steps you've taken to correct the situation.

Any child who grew up as an avid builder of plastic model airplane kits knows very well that this most famous airplane is called the "Kitty Hawk". That's because this was clearly the name on the box: Google Image Search: kitty+hawk+wright+model+kit These ubiquitous kits, available all across the USA, spanned from the 1950s through the 1990s at a minimum.

And here is the motherload reference for the Wright Brothers' 1903 airplane being named the "Kitty Hawk":

https://sova.si.edu/record/NASM.XXXX.0393?s=11210&n=10&t=C&q=Art&i=11212 (dnld as PDF)

This 'Wright 1903 Flyer "Operation Homecoming" Scrapbook' from the Smithsonian Institute has well over one hundred instances of this airplane being called the "Kitty Hawk". Furthermore, that is the name which is used exclusively throughout this document (with three rare exceptions cited below). Here are particular pages of note:

- PDF p41,p45,p73,p221 of254: airplane referred to as "Kitty", for short, along with the commonly used name "Kitty Hawk".

- PDF p29,p47-57,p81 of254: airplane referred to as "Kittyhawk" (with no space), along with the commonly used name "Kitty Hawk".

- PDF p41,p67 of254: "Kitty Hawk Day" proclamation.

- PDF p43 of254: US NAVY OFFICIAL MEMO & PLAN, airplane referred to as "Kitty Hawk" x2 in Memo, x1 in Plan, signed by XO of USS Palau.

Here are the rare exceptions to where the aircraft is referred to by any name other than the "Kitty Hawk" (or "Kitty", or "Kittyhawk"):

- PDF p71 of254: airplane "...known as both the "Flyer" and the "Kitty Hawk"." (newspaper: Paterson Evening News, Paterson, NJ).

- PDF p87 of254: "...Orville sought to have the 'Flyer' (as they called me)...", Magazine article, Current Science and Aviation.

- PDF p109 of254: "...the Wright Brothers' "Flyer" is...", (along with calling it the "Kitty Hawk", newspaper: The Knickerbocker News, Albany, NY).

This speech transcript is what I consider to be the STRONGEST reference:

- PDF p173 of254: Hap Arnold's message at the Smithsonian presentation event, Dec 17, 1948, "...this priceless airplane, the "Kitty Hawk", is back home...", "...I can never think of the "Kitty Hawk" without being aware of...", "...which the "Kitty Hawk" fathered...".

Hap Arnold knew the Wright Brothers personally. One of the "Early Birds", he was taught to fly by them at their school. He was the only 5-star general of the US Air Force, along with being the winner of the first Mackay Trophy, and being a founder of Pan Am and Project RAND.

And then of course there is Paul Garber of the Smithsonian who oversaw Operation Homecoming. Garber was one of the foremost historians on the pioneers of flight. He personally accompanied the aircraft during its legs from Nova Scotia to Washington DC. He had approval authority over these aspects of the entire mission, to include the name by which the airplane was referred to.

This Smithsonian reference includes examples from many various newspapers which referred to this airplane exclusively as the "Kitty Hawk", including The New York Times, The New York Sun, The Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Daily News, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, along with newspapers in Paterson, NJ, Dayton, OH, Omaha, NE, Scranton, PA, Albany, NY, Buffalo, NY, Nova Scotia, and Wellington, NZ.

Upon examination of the plethora of sources contained within this Smithsonian scrapbook, it indicates quite clearly that the PRIMARY NAME for this famous airplane is the "Kitty Hawk". And this was my first thought when I first happened across this article, many years ago: "I wonder why they aren't calling this plane the "Kitty Hawk". --Wright Stuf (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Wright Stuf for your detailed research and analysis. Nice work. I enjoyed the link to decades of the scale model planes, all named Kitty Hawk. You've shown that there is a case for Kitty Hawk as primary name, and it would be an interesting RM (as Wright Flyer has probably become the common name). At a minimum your research shows that Kitty Hawk should remain as the main alternative. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

These were great documents to read. And here is another excellent reference:

Wilbur & Orville Wright: A Bibliography Commemorating the One-Hundredth Anniversary of the First Powered Flight (NASA Publication SP-2002-4527, published Sep, 2002)

On pg123 (pdf132of153) you can find a batch of even more examples where the airplane is referred to as the "Kitty Hawk":

- Kitty Hawk in Museum. Aviation Week, Nov. 29, 1948, vol. 49, no. 22, p.15

- The Kitty Hawk Comes Home at Last, by Findley, Earl N., U.S. Air Services, Dec. 1948, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 5-6

- Kitty Hawk's Last Landing. Air Force, Dec. 1948, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 18-19

- America Welcomes the Kittyhawk. Some Extracts from the American Press on the Return of the Aeronautical Beau Geste. Pylon, June 1949, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 21

It's quite colorful to call this plane the "Aeronautical Beau Geste". That aside, Aviation Week and Air Force Magazine are not shabby references, as with the highly prestigious newspapers previously cited above, and of course the US Navy and US Air Force themselves, along with the Smithsonian, the folks who own, keep and maintain the Kitty Hawk. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Legacy section, in light of the name Kitty Hawk

Given the understanding that this famous aircraft has been widely and commonly known as the "Kitty Hawk", it is important for this article to likewise include the legacy of things which followed that were also named "Kitty Hawk". This includes aircraft and spacecraft, ships (airplane/aircraft carriers), and schools.

(These following blockquote paragraphs can be skipped as largely being an aside, separate from the Legacy section being recommended.)
The aircraft naming story is particularly interesting. Aside from single aircraft being given the name "Kitty Hawk", there is the legacy naming of an entire aircraft type as the "Kittyhawk". Then there is the naming pattern observed within a particular aircraft corporation. Grumman, for example, is widely noted for using nicknames ending in "-cat". These are the Wildcat, Hellcat, Tigercat, Bearcat and Tomcat for the F4F, F6F, F7F, F8F and F-14 respectively. Continuing the "cat" theme, there was also the Grumman Panther, Cougar, Jaguar and Tiger. We can guess that when Grumman won the Lunar Module contract, there were strong arguments within the company to give this spacecraft a "-cat" name to continue this legacy. And when that didn't happen, there were 9 Apollo crews who flew these, with the commanders of Apollo 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17 all having been Navy carrier pilots. In the case of Apollo 12 & 14, BOTH moonwalkers were Navy officers who had flown off of carriers. So any of these missions could have given their spaceships "-cat" callsigns. Neil Armstrong, Pete Conrad, Al Bean, Fred Haise, Alan Shepard, John Young and Gene Cernan all had flown Grumman "cats" off of carriers as their primary aircraft. The others (Lovell, Mitchell, etc) probably flew Grumman "cats" as a Navy test pilot. The best opportunity seems to have been Apollo 12, the All-Navy crew, with all three being Grumman "cat" veterans, with moonwalkers Conrad & Bean having flown the F9F Cougar operationally (VF-43 & VA-44 repectively), and the Command Module Pilot Dick Gordon having flown the F11F Tiger as a test pilot.

But that didn't happen. I've never seen anyone refer to the LM as the Lunacat, nor similar. These "Moon Sailors" never did that. And I've never heard this topic raised, nor any of the moonwalkers asked this directly. But Apollo 14 did name their Command Module the Kitty Hawk (made by North American Aviation, a company which curiously has the same initials as the "First Man", N.A.A.). In parallel with this entrenched history of Grumman "-cats", there is another aircraft company which has an extremely long history of using the "-hawk" nickname. Though I don't hear anyone discuss this one. The Wright Brothers started their own aircraft company. In later years, Wright Aeronautical merged with Curtiss to become Curtiss-Wright, a company which exists to this day, headquartered in North Carolina. You can visit their homepage, and that page shows you the Wright Flyer. Click on that image, and it says this:

"Curtiss-Wright Corporation ... has a long history with its roots dating back to Orville and Wilbur Wright's first flight in 1903, and Mr. Glenn Curtiss, the father of naval aviation. In 1929, the companies founded by these three great aviation pioneers, the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company and Wright Aeronautical Corporation, merged to form the largest aircraft company at the time..."

So it is this company which produced the P-40 Kittyhawk. Along with an entire line of "-hawk" aircraft, even predating the Wright merger. This includes the P-1, P-2, P-3, P-5, P-6, P-11, P-17, P-22, P-23, P-36 and AT-4 & AT-5 ...ALL named "Hawk". The P-40 is also known as the Warhawk and the Tomahawk. Various other Curtiss models were named the Seahawk, Sparrowhawk, Goshawk and Blackhawk. Then there was the Dayton-Wright XO-3 Mohawk . (Other companies have produced airplanes named the Skyhawk, Nighthawk, Jayhawk, and most recently the Red Hawk, along with the Hawkeye, and the more obscure Hawk Junior. Helo nicknames include the Black Hawk, Seahawk, Pave Hawk, Jayhawk and SpeedHawk. Pilotless aircraft have been named the Global Hawk, T-Hawk and SpyHawk.)

Now I am not aware of these Hawk-themed aircraft nicknames as being connected with the Wright Brothers, or was done in tribute to them (with the obvious exception being the Kittyhawk). But I do see it to be important to have this mentioned here in the Talk page in case anyone were to find a reference where it is stated that there is some connection or tribute. If that were to be found, then it would be important to include that in the Legacy section.

One could even go so far as to identify commonality between these two different families of aircraft nicknames, both the -cat and -hawk traditions. The name "Kitty Hawk" has connotations of both -cat and -hawk. And then there is likewise commonality in the launching mechanism used by the Wright brothers, as well as the Navy carrier jet aircraft from more than one company, the Tomcat, the Skyhawk, etc. These used what is commonly called a "cat launch", here with the term 'cat' being an abbreviation for 'catapult'. 'Cats' using 'cats'. But this peripheral connection goes far beyond the naming pattern topic. And this entire blockquote section can be set aside for current purposes.

For the time being, the recommendation being proposed is to add a Legacy section where direct connections are clear. This includes the specific aircraft and spacecraft named the Kitty Hawk, along with the ships, and even one school in Texas, where the students at Kitty Hawk Middle School in San Antonio are known as The Flyers. This school is located on Kitty Hawk Rd. And this road is one mile from the Main Entrance at Randolph, Air Force Base, the famous pilot training base that was given the nickname "West Point of the Air". Another school, back at the Outer Banks, is First Flight High School, with their mascot being the Nighthawks, yet another -hawk themed name. Across the street is First Flight Middle School, where they are the Seahawks, and also First Flight Elementary, the Flyers. All three of these schools are adjacent to the Wright Brothers Memorial, with statue of the airplane being even closer.

Another excellent subsection for this would include mention of these statues of the Kitty Hawk, like this other one at Embry-Riddle in Daytona, Florida, in Chanute, Kansas, at Maxwell AFB, AL, etc. At least citing the most prominent ones. It seems to be a fitting complement to the Reproductions section.

And there's also the "Kitty Hawk Air Society" of the US Air Force Junior ROTC. Here's one page of theirs: with pin photo showing the Wright Flyer.

Far more important, and arguably the most important of all of these, is the NACA (seal), the 40-plus year predecessor to NASA itself. --Wright Stuf (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's another one I had missed:

File:Viking_B-8_Kitty_Hawk_(2835380968).jpg

The Viking B-8 Kitty Hawk, used as a trainer during World War II (along with the Waco and Cub). One of the most famous pilots who trained in this Kitty Hawk was none other than Ted Williams, who flew this as prep for entering the "V-5 Naval Aviation program". The screening was done at Amherst's Civilian Pilot Training Course as the first phase of officer candidate training (ref). This B-8 Kitty Hawk was built by Viking Flying Boat Co. of New Haven, CT, after a merger with Bourdon Aircraft Corporation of Hillsgrove, Rhode Island (info HERE & HERE, stating that 34 were built). THIS document shows that George Bush was picked at the same place and time as Ted Williams by the Naval Aviation Cadet Selection Board. So it appears that it would be a reasonable guess that George Bush ALSO flew the B-8 Kitty Hawks at Amherst. (Bush & Williams ended up as "Cloudbusters" in the V-5 program at Chapel Hill along with Gerald Ford, as stated by Anne Keene in her vid, with John Glenn going thru the V-5 program in Iowa.) The marketing slogan that Bourdon used was:

The Kitty Hawk: "Flies Like a Hawk — Lands Like a Kitten"

(see AD, with the logo of pilot's wings featuring a cat's face as the center crest, and the words KITTY HAWK on the wings.)

Imagine if someone were to discover a photo of a pilot like Ted Williams or George Bush flying one of these Kitty Hawks. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The P-40 Kittyhawk and Tomahawk names are British creations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's an in-depth reference which explains:

"...the export version of the P-40, tagged the Tomahawk by Curtiss."

"...designating it the D-model, while the Royal Air Force gave it a new name: the Kittyhawk."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Curtiss_P_40/2pCHCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

And here's another excellent reference which shows that the name "Warhawk" was not used until the F-model (Kittyhawk Mk II):

http://ram-home.com/ram-old/p-40family.html

This section of Misplaced Pages explains that the batch of P-40s delivered to the AVG Flying Tigers were "Tomahawks":

Flying_Tigers#Curtiss_P-40

Tomahawk IIB's, to be exact. So P-40C's. That was well before the USAAF started calling the P-40F's the Warhawk.

Then there's also the fighterbomber units who nicknamed their P-40's the "Kittybomber". --Wright Stuf (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"Kittybomber" is Kittyhawk+bomber (see also "Hurribomber" from (Hawker) Hurricane+bomber, "Whirlibomber" from Westland Whirlwind+bomber and Bombphoon from Bomb(er)+Hawker Typhoon.

British designations early in the war for American aircraft were taken from placenames in the US. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

One other issue to be resolved. Are things named Kitty Hawk named after the aircraft itself or the first flight (location)?GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: Place vs Plane

I myself do not see that as being anything that needs to be resolved.

...because the only reason why the place became famous is because of that singular event which happened on one particular day in history. The day that this aircraft became the first successful airplane.

Now the US Navy, for example, will tell you their official story that the aircraft carrier was named in tribute to the place...

"Named for: Kitty Hawk, N.C., and for Kill Devil Hill, the site approximately four miles south of the village of Kitty Hawk, where Orville and Wilbur Wright made the first successful sustained powered flights in a heavier-than-air machine on 17 December 1903.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/k/kitty-hawk-cva-63-ii.html

But I see this to be as silly as if those kids in San Antonio were told that their school, Kitty Hawk Middle School, is named after THE ROAD!

It creates cognitive dissonance as to why these kids refer to themselves as "The Flyers", and not, say, "The Asphalts".

And with the US Navy, to maintain that the ship is named for the village, then it DOES NOT explain why their ship's symbol unambiguously depicts the airplane:

If it was really only named for the village of Kitty Hawk, then a proper symbol would be the Town Hall, or at least their local 7-Eleven.

These prominent facts make it absolutely clear that regardless of what their official story might be, these are all examples of things being de facto named in honor of the Wright Brothers and their airplane.

Even in the case of the USS Wright, here is a patch design which does not depict a silhouette of the two brothers, but instead shows their airplane in flight:

https://www.popularpatch.com/navy-patches/aircraft-carrier-patches/cvl-49-uss-wright-kitty-hawk-patch

All of this is unambiguous evidence that what is being honored here is not merely the place, and not only the two men, but THE EVENT that was accomplished by these two brothers at this particular place. These are unequivocal tributes to the Wright Flyer, the Kitty Hawk. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

OOPS. I now see that I misread your comment, Graeme.
You were questioning:

Plane vs Event

Not Plane vs Place.
Here I do not see how the two can be separated. Again, the only reason why the plane is famous is because of the event. And I would assert that our biggest guide on that question is the fact that here on Misplaced Pages, this Wright Flyer article covers both. There is no separate article covering the event as distinct from the aircraft. We have articles on the inventors, the photographer, and the plane. Each of these discuss the event. But not a separate article for that. And so I see no need whatsoever for us to split out any such distinction. And I don't see how we would go about attempting to do that, even if someone saw that to be a productive effort. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is what I see to be another excellent guide for us here...
This example of The Spirit of St. Louis (disambiguation). We have an entire section on Charles Lindbergh#In popular culture.
I have not delved into this, but I would be shocked if anyone there attempts to split out any distinction between the aircraft vs the event. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Italics

Hello Ahunt. Single aircraft which are named are italicized (Wright Flyer, Enola Gay, etc.). Saw you also removed italics from the name of a Space Shuttle and the Ingenuity helicopter, so wanted to let you know before other Space Shuttle pages are unitalicized. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Why was section discussing pieces of Flyer on Moon and Mars deleted???

All,

Why did editor Randy Kryn remove the short section about pieces of the Wright Flyer being brought to the Moon and Mars? His edit claims "there is an entire section about this at the page below" but it's not clear what "page" he is referring to. I no longer see any references to these in the article.

Certainly, the section as written was entirely accurate and now no information about the Wright Flyer pieces brought to the Moon and Mars appears in this article at all.

Strongly need this restored. TheGreyMouser2016 (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, a section already existed when you added yours. You can find it at Wright Flyer#Artifacts. Please have a look to see if more needs to be added, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I now see that the "page" he was referring to is within the "Artifacts" roll-up subsection of this article. However, still need to understand why the Moon and Mars references are better hidden in an "Artifacts" roll-up section and not in the main body of the article. TheGreyMouser2016 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'roll up section'. The topics have a decent sized section with some good images. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

TheGreyMouser2016, thanks for the suggestion, I've added a brief note in the lead as a summary of the Artifacts section. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

When TheGreyMouser2016 mentions the "roll- up subsection", I can only conclude that this editor is reading the article on the godforsaken mobile app which displays only the lead section of the article, unless the reader clicks on a pull-down menu to actually read the body of the full article. Randy Kryn, this is the type of havoc that WMF software foolishness wreaks. The fully functional desktop site works fine on 2021 mobile devices and the app is addressing 2010 problems. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The only time I looked at Misplaced Pages on mobile was when a friend looked something up about 10 years ago, and I've never edited on mobile, so thanks for the explanation and a sad thing to hear. Because of TheGreyMouse's commendable persistence I've added a summary to the lead which should do the trick. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, I do 99% of my editing on Android smartphones, and I use the desktop site. I only check out the mobile site from time to time, to verify that it still sucks, which it still does. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, not the mobile life for me. Edit on a chesttop laptop, much easier laying around than sitting up. My related quibble is the small size of the default print, I crank my machine up to 175 percent and that suits me fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it from the lede - a couple of swatches of cloth are too minor to put in the lede and has little to do with the aircraft and its flights during its operational life time. It is mentioned down in the body of the article under "artifacts" and that is sufficient. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ahunt. The lead summarizes its page and, apparently, is the only thing shown on some screens. Instead of removing these important honors of the Wright Flyer this lead could use a couple more paragraphs in addition to this one. Maybe concentrate on extending the lead summary, which is now too short, and provide the standard lead-overview of the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter really, even if the lede is expanded, or split into more paras, the fact that a tiny swatch of fabric was sent to Mars is still really minor and wouldn't belong in the lede. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd disagree. If there was an adequate lead summarizing the page the honoring, no matter how large a piece of the Wright Flyer was used (what if NASA had sent an entire wing of the plane? The tiny fabrics, and the wood which went to the Moon, have the same effect: symbolizing in real-time and space the enormity of what the Wright's accomplished) it would find inclusion in the summary. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I would basically classify it as WP:TRIVIA, but let's see if any other editors think it should be in the lede. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting but in the end it is trivia and doesnt need a mention in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wright brothers were not the first

Stringfellow beat them. https://www.newscientist.com/definition/first-powered-flight/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.170.14.66 (talk • contribs)

From this article:

The U.S. Smithsonian Institution describes the aircraft as "the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard."

From the article Wright brothers:

They made the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft...

Key words are pilot, and also controlled, which, back then, would be a pilot. DB1729 (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

References

1. "Exhibitions". 2016-04-28.

I think the key word that you quote is "sustained" that doesnt apply to Stringfellow. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Well, Stringfellow's craft flew about 90 feet vs Wright's 120 feet. So I gathered the key distinction was control. Stringfellow's craft was unmanned and thus uncontrolled. DB1729 (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In the UK in a small village near Great Ayton there was a steam powered craft that half glided and half flew over a field a few years before the Wright brothers. It is not very well known but the wright brothers were the first to make a sustained flight back in 1903. I'm unaware of any other pre WB flight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew James Gilbert (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages content is based on published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Colorized image (again)

The article once again features a colorized image, in the Specifications section, as added by Wright Stuf in this edit. I believe the colorized and edited photo has no place in this article. I also remember this was the consensus in the talk page discussion last year, which I hope we do not need to reproduce here. I will remove it now. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Despite the consensus, this image seem to be constantly reintroduced. I agree it does not belong, looks really awful. It looks more like a screenshot from a video game than a historical photograph. - Ahunt (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I again oppose use of this colorized image in this article, which is jam packed full of original research on the part of the colorizing editor. No one can possibly know what the actual colors were at the time of the flight, and all of the truly encyclopedic content is contained in the black and white photo. This simply does not belong here. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Uses global dating system

This article uses the global dating system (dd/mm/yy). Why am I ranting about this? Well the flight, took place in Kill Devil, North Carolina, which is in the United States. The United States, however uses their own dating system (mm/dd/yy). I request to fix this. Please change all the dates in the article to fit mm/dd/yy. This is to give convenience to American readers. MLBFanAdrien (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. The article originally used MDY dates, but because of a mistaken change to the article date in May 2021, the date style was changed in December 2021. As such, I've started changing it back. BilCat (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Solving mystery of this photo

This photo shows the Wrights and party(the men from the Life Saving Station) bringing the Flyer back to the camp after the fourth flight on December 17, 1903. The airplane is in a state of disassembly and transit with the rudder laying on the ground in back of the machine. The engine and props have stopped. The front elevator has been detached and is in a more upright position as it had been twisted over and semi crushed after the fourth flight. Importantly the machine has probably already been brought back several hundred feet from where it ended the 852ft flight by the time this photo was snapped. One can compare the photo with the more clear frontal photo of the machine just after Wilbur's landing.

Koplimek (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, what's the mystery of the photo? Furthermore, will solving this mystery help improve the article? - ZLEA _T\ 22:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, what is your point? - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Because many people think the aeroplane is still flying. There was a caption by early flying historian Carroll Gray, it has now been reduced to a citation, and now essentially out of site. So I added some clearup.Koplimek (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I can see how people might think that, but I don't know that it is a problem on Misplaced Pages. - ZLEA _T\ 00:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Liking the uncropped version better, it gives a fuller experience of what the site looked like. I haven't looked if it's there yet, but if it is real, and seems to be, the uncropped version could be used on the page somewhere in a large enough size to provide the feeling of the scene. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See Wright Flyer#Flight trials at Kitty Hawk. It's been there awhile. BilCat (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I added it for context and added the other front photo. Cropped versions are at Wikicommons.Koplimek (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:First flight2.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Misplaced Pages's picture of the day (POTD) for December 17, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-12-17. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Misplaced Pages talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

The Wright Flyer, also known as the Kitty Hawk, made the first sustained flight by a manned heavier-than-air powered and controlled aircraft – an airplane – on December 17, 1903. Invented and flown by the Wright brothers, it marked the beginning of the pioneer era of aviation. The Wright Flyer is a single-place biplane design with anhedral (drooping) wings, front double elevator and rear double rudder. It used a 12-horsepower (9-kilowatt) gasoline engine powering two pusher propellers. Employing "wing warping", it was relatively unstable and very difficult to fly. The Wright brothers flew it four times in a location south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. The airplane flew 852 feet (260 m) on its fourth and final flight, but was damaged on landing, and minutes later was wrecked when powerful gusts blew it over. The aircraft never flew again but was shipped home and subsequently restored by Orville Wright. It was housed in the Science Museum in London from 1928 to 1948, and is now exhibited at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. This photograph, taken by John T. Daniels, a local member of the United States Life-Saving Service, shows the Wright Flyer seconds into its first flight in 1903. Photograph credit: John T. Daniels; restored by Lise Broer Recently featured: Common cuttlefish Tim Peake Raspberry Archive More featured pictures

• view
• talk
• edit
• history
• watch
• file page

• Selected anniversaries (December 2010)
• C-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Technology
• C-Class vital articles in Technology
• C-Class aviation articles
• C-Class aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• C-Class Smithsonian Institution-related articles
• High-importance Smithsonian Institution-related articles
• WikiProject Smithsonian Institution-related articles