Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:19, 25 April 2006

Selected on Template:December 17 selected anniversaries

First discussions

What about Santos Dumont? You are misleading people. The Wright Brothers are not generally accepted for design and construction of a "workable" aircraft. Please add "Generally accepted by the North Americans". You must correct this article if you would like have credit as a sound resource of good information in Brazil.

I'm brazilian and say that the same arguments of the Brazilians are contested in America and sets of ten of other countries (Europe also). I think, after everything what I read and saw in Brazilian TV it's pure nationalism and pride. --Brazil4Linux 02:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Aviation historian desparately needed. This article says more about some other guy than it does about the people who invented the airplane. Ortolan88

• Agree. I propose that the bulk of the non-Wright brothers material be moved to a different page. How about "Aviation Pioneers"? (Which needs to mention Samuel Langley as well...) Infrogmation 23:32 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

• Disagree. Note that mentioning the Wright Brothers as the Inventors of the airplane is not neutral to the worldwide community, as in some countries this is credited to other persons. I Agree that if the page is about the W.B., the comments about anything else should be short. So a paragraph or two about the controvery would be enough and necessary.

I think I have just made the situation worse, with the George Cayley stuff. The article now says a great deal about what they didn't do, but nothing at all about what they did do! It does have to be pointed out, however, that contrary to popular belief the Wrights did not invent the airplane. Nevertheless, they were brilliant men who deserve a decent biography and a thorough explanation of their invaluable contributions to aeronautics. I may give it a shot when I find time, but that won't be soon, I'm afraid. GrahamN 00:40 Oct 7, 2002 (UTC)

The Wright Brothers page was very misleading with respect to several facts:

1. The Wrights and other aviation enthusiasts of the time were fully aware of Cayley's accomplishment. Cayley's craft was not a practical airplane; the Wright brothers' was.

2. The Cayley craft was a glider. Presumably his coachman also landed at a lower point than where he took off.

3. The Wrights craft was self-propelled. The so-called "catapult" system for the 1903 flight was simply a rail on which the airplane rode on two bicycle hubs. In September 1904 the Wrights added a catapult weight system at Huffman prairie to make up for extremely light winds.

Please read "The Bishop's Boys" by Tom Crouch before repeating other claims of beating the Wright brothers here. They were extraordinary engineers with extraordinary accomplishments in the development of the modern airplane.

Yes! Please put this in the article! We all agree it is very poor as it stands. Ortolan88

I did it. Thanks for the encouragement!

Less than half of the "Wright brothers" article is actually about the Wright Brothers. Again, I suggest that the bulk of this be moved to a new page (which of course the Wright article would link to). Unless someone else comes with a better suggestion, I'll make a new page "Aviation pioneers". (I think a title like "First heavier than air manned flight" would be a bit long?) -- Infrogmation 20:51 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Infrogmation, please do it. Tannin 22:25 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I see you already beat me to it. Thanks! -- Infrogmation 23:33 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

The picture is fine on my Mac running Mozilla. Tuf-Kat

If text immediately follows a </div> tag, it appears as indented on the page. There needs to be a blank line between the end of the </div> tag and the text. RickK 01:07 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Point 1: This monkey of trying to pretend that the Wright Brothers are not generally regarded as the first people to fly a powered aeroplane really needs to stop. Yes, there are a host of other claimants, however not one of them has anything like the claim on the honour that the Wright Brothers have. This is a fact of life: deal with it.

Misplaced Pages is not the place to trot out ill-documented fantasies and weirdo theories which are mostly, when all is said and done, a desperate sop to national pride. The fact is that it was those upstart Americans who did it first (or, at the very least, are generally credited with doing it first - which is all that we as encyclopedia editors with a commitment to a NPOV can report) may well be galling to some contributors, but that is not relevat to this entry. Lord knows, I am usually the last to say anything nice about Americans, but in this particular case, one must be bound by the facts at hand.

Point 2: The convention here is that terms used in an entry to begin with are not usually replaced by terms from the "other" English. "Airplane" (the US English term) came first, and unlovely though it is, it should not ordinarily be replaced by "aeroplane" - the International English term - particularly so as the Wright Brothers themselves were American. In this particular instance, however, the correct term is "aeroplane": this is the term the Wright Brothers themselves used, as did all other Americans until well after Wilbur was dead and Orville had retired. A minor point, no doubt, but we ought to be able to get this stuff right.

Tannin 13:21, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You are trying to force your believes and telling to everyone to stop to tell their believes... That is awful! You have said: "ill-documented fantasies and weirdo theories which are mostly, when all is said and done, a desperate sop to national pride". So, claiming the W.B. as the inventors of the airplane isn't the same in name of the Americans pride? Why this claim should prevail to others? Saying what you have said seems that your version is an universal truth and everything else is nonsense. You must respect the other countries believes.

We are not talking "often" or "sometimes" here, We are talking "almost always" - and let's be very clear on the point, I am not an American. In the world at large (i.e., outside of the two or three places that think they were "robbed" of the "title") there really isn't any serious debate on this question. Tannin

Hello, why do you write "..are generally credited with the invention of the aeroplane" if you finally admit that " the first (flight) was Clement Ader" (40 yards flight in 1890..) who is the inventor ?! finaly, the fact it was a secret(*) does change something or not ?... your idea about that. (*) as read in Clement Ader's page. It does not change that fact that these engineers make so import work for planes...

But on the Ader page it said that he is not credited with first flight because all of his "flights" ended in crashes. On secrecy: It doesn't help any that he's among the dozens of other names on the list of "made a first flight years before the Wrights yet hardly repeated their feats for anyone". --Mrwojo 17:30, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The fact there are dozens of other who claims for that should invalidate everything ? strange..

But ok, I don't know, I just read this article, it started like they were invent planes.. and finaly it's not sure. I just wanted to show you this inconsistancy, I'm not an expert. obfuscations are not clever and not recommanded in encyclopdia. If it impossible to establish who invent planes, just say it. whatever they will be consider as inventor for most of people (mass) we don't need to relay non-reliable information. (if it is)

your advice ? /fab/

On the "dozens of other claims": It could weaken the claims by those who were not widely recognized (i.e., they said of, but did not reproduce their feats), but the Wright brothers have been widely recognized for their achievement as the article says. I agree that there are consistency problems with this article. Some people disagree with the credit given to the Wright brothers and change the article to the discredit of the Wrights. The inconsistency is the result of compromises made. --Mrwojo

Did I change this article ? no. did I said I want to put discredit on Wrights Bros. ? no. I just says the way it's write looks strange (I'm not an expert on plane). There are claims, ok, many cannot be received as they could not reproduce it. and ?... I don't suggest to change this article into a "what they didn't do" article. it look very puerile to says "I don't listen to you because so much people made vandalism about it, or because there are so many claim we cannot be sure.. and as my teacher learn me at my school, they did it, not the others !". I think we must be over the national pride. If every one agrees we cannot establish who is the inventor, we should just write in this way. And about this article ? it will be like other great pionneer. I don't suggest to write : "they are not the inventor", just something like : "one of the inventor of airplane" with a link that explain, they all did importants things, and must all thanks a lot, and it's so difficult to says who really invent plane... and so on... just a suggestion.. /fab/

Quite right. This is a terrible article, and one that I'd love to rewrite comprehensively had I only the time to spare at present (which I certainly don't). (sigh) There are two major problems with iit: (a) it has hardly any content at all, (b) the content it does have is mostly about other people and the various other claims made on first flight. This other stuff clearly belongs in history of aviation or somewhere like that, or possibly in first powered flight - not in Wright brothers.

Everyone does not agree that we cannot establish "the inventor". Very nearly everyone agrees that, to the extent it is possible to establish an inventor at all for something that so many people worked towards and made progress on, the Wright brothers were the ones. This is not a controversial claim. The position of the Wright brothers (and Charlie Taylor) in aviation is not in doubt. Most people also agree that plucking one particular event out of history and annointing it as "the magic moment" is a distortion. The place to discuss this, however, is in an article about the early history of flight, not in the biography of any particular poineer. Tannin 23:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There was a whole television program on (I think) the History Channel about the Wright's claim, and the fact that giving the original Flyer to the Smithsonian was linked to a secret agreement that they would always be given the credit for inventing the airplane/aeroplane. There were several people who "flew" at various dates and with varying levels of success. Who was "first" depends on your definition of "flew" and is fairly arbitrary. Like most inventions, it was not the work of one man (or two men) but was the result of on-going human research. See also the invention of the light bulb! To give everybody a fair shake, I think an encyclopedia should just list what they all did and when. Anjouli 18:41, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you.

I think we can write something like "one of the inventor of airplane" with a link that just explain :"as it's difficult to establish who's the inventor of plan (depending on arbitrary definition of 'flight'..and so on..)" and maybe,with a list of each idea/feature they give to make this dream possible.

it's a suggestion, don't you this it's NPOV ? /fab/

Yes, the Wrights were standing on the shoulders of giants when the achieved what they did. The aviation history article would be the appropriate place to go in-depth on the history of aviation :-) (also, Infrogmation suggested an "aviation pioneers" page above). I really don't want to see this article regress back to "what the Wright brothers didn't do". Beyond that, I feel that Tannin's words just above this discussion are particularly important. --Mrwojo 01:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The article needs some clarification on a particular point about the Wright Bros patent. The patent application; Applied for in March 1903; and granted in May of 1906; was in relation to the principle of 'wing warping' - "an improvement to flying machines" . It was NOT for a flying machine in itself. Indeed if you look at the detailed drawings of the patent http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/WrightUSPatent/WrightPatent.html application you will see that the diagram is of a glider and not a powered aircraft. Mintguy 11:08, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps we should stay away from the word "invention" altogether. Just state that <<whoever>> built this and it did that on <<whenever>> date. Anjouli 03:21, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From the point of view of avoiding a disagreement, this is a bad idea. Facts are facts, and it is part of our task to report them accurately, particularly when (as in this case) there is no reasonable room for doubt. (Remember that we are reporting that the WBs are generally credited with the invention. We make no claim that this general belief is true or false.

However, the word "invention" is (and always was) a poor choice. I haven't consulted a dictionary about this, but to me an invention is where you have an original idea and then figure out a way to build it. The idea of the aeroplane had been around for centuries; nearly all of the techniques the WBs used were also fairly common currency amongst aviation pioneers; and there were quite a lot of people in different parts of the world all working towards the same general "invention".

The unique thing about the Wrights was that their flying machine worked. Not very well and not for very long, but it actually worked at all - and his was something that none of the other pioneers could boast in 1903.

Tannin 11:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From the article: "... they extended the technology of flight with the principles of control still used today ..." - it's a moot point whether wing-warping is equivalent to ailerons. Mintguy 12:41, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Once we have established the special position of the Wrights in aviation history, we then need to bring out the 3 key achievemets that set them apart, the three reasons why they were the first:

1. They saw that the issue wasn't making an aircraft stable, it was making it controllable - if it is controllable enough, it doesn't matter if it is stable or not. (With regard to Mintguy's query, wing-warping is very much the same thing as ailerons: both are ways to control the aircraft by altering the aerodynamic shape of the wing. Outside of the details of engineering, they are identical. The other control methods - spoilers, vectored thrust, and so on - are very different.)
2. The other great reason why the Wright Flyer actually flew is that, for the first time in history, they had an engine light enough to lift that was also capable of delivering (almost!) enough power. This too was critical - and here we should remember that the Wrights did not invent and build that engine: Charlie Taylor did. His place in aviation history is second only to that of the Wrights.
3. Finally, the reason behind the reasons, the reason the Wrights succeeded in putting all that together and making it fly: they tried very, very hard for a very long time. They put in years of painstaking step-by-step work, spending most of their waking hours and just about everything they earned (including finding the money to hire Charlie Taylor). They were intelligent, they were organised, they were dedicated, they were practical, but most of all they just worked their arses off. Tannin 11:31, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh come on! The reason they are considerred to be the first are three very different reasons:

1. Documentation. They had their first flight photographed and they also kept a good record of what they did.
2. The were commercially sucessull. Early on the military became interested in the use of aircrafts for military use.
3. They were americans. National pride play an important part. just check how many poeple who think ENIAC was the first computer and not, for instance the Z3.

There were earlier controllable flights, however they used more complicated and/or less sucsessfull methods to control the aeroplane in flight. Then there is the question if the Flyer really became controllable until they moved the height rudder to the rear. The statement on the engine is just plain wrong. There were at thet time already available several other engines designed for use in aircrafts that gave better performance/weight ratio. Thet they tried very hard there is no dubt about, but that's hardy unique. However their methods were probably better (for instance the use of a wind tunnel). // Liftarn

hello, its write "Possible earlier flights" and "There are several claims". and when I go to this page, I don't see anything about "possible" or "doubt", they just used other techniques ?... ok, so why not to write in Wright page "Earlier other technique flight" no?

Well I've just read this background discussion after callously adding my Richard Pearse paragraph. I recommend two things:

• Change the opening section to be more neutral-point-of-view: perhaps "generally credited in America", I know New Zealanders tend to credit Pearse ahead of the Wrights
• We need that list of what other people did and when; just the main disputes, not every contribution, there's already an Aviation history page. As far as an encyclopaedia goes people are going to want to compare achievements, so even if the main discussion of other achievements goes to another article we should still list the main competition on this article.

On the other hand, if my Richard Pearse paragraph doesn't offend anyone I'm happy with just that. Ben Arnold 02:43, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Generally credited

"Generally credited in the US" does not imply "generally credited" full stop. From my reading of the related pages there's some real dispute among experts. Perhaps the best term should be "often credited". Ben Arnold 04:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's going to be a long opening paragraph if you include every country that "generally credits" the Wright brothers with being the "first to fly". In Australia I'm not aware of a popular dispute over their claim. There are more appropriate places to promote Richard Pearse. Geoff/Gsl 06:02, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Links to others who claim to be the first"

Seems reasonable to me to link to the most common claims. The argument that other articles do this already seems weak to me. We needn't dwell on it here, providing a short list seems like a sensible thing to do. I'm sure I read some principle that duplication by summary is seen as a good thing on Misplaced Pages. Surely that extends as far as a few links. Ben Arnold 04:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Having a link to all the earlier benchmarks and claims is enough. I try and rewrite the first to be more clear in any case. Greyengine5 15:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Katherine Wright

I am disappointed that there is no mention of Katherine Wright, sister of Orville and Wilbur. Her contribution was not minor, although it was not technical. She worked as a schoolteacher and kept the household functioning, allowing the unmarried brothers to concentrate on their bicycle shop and aviation experiments. When the three Wrights travelled to Europe to demonstrate their machine, she made such a positive impression on many with her grace and diplomacy that she was referred to as "the third Wright brother". None of this is to argue that she should dominate the page, but her name does not appear even once. --Cathy

Individual biograpies

I find it somewhat disappointing that the Wright brothers are only mentioned together, not individually. Their pages redirect to this page.

Ohio/North Carolina dispute

I decided to add a short section on the dispute between Ohio and North Carolina over claim to the Wrights' accomplishment. As a native of Dayton, this is a common topic of discussion (and often a source of heated opinions.) I kept a NPOV, of course. - Chardish 03:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bias complaint by 210.50.244.152

wow to my sup rise i found a heap of we are right because we say so arguments with a heap of large words thrown in to make me sound smart and correct.if the Wright brothers had of just Acknowledge everyone else we wouldnt have this problem. Basicly they put a engine in a plane and patent it.

You're saying this article as a POV bias favoring the Wright brothers? Perhaps. Many articles on "X" are biased toward "X", since the people motivated to write or read significantly about "X" tend to be heavily "X" oriented. People should expect this. The only time we're likely to get any "X is no big deal" articles is from people who are biased against "X" because it conflicts with their bias for "Y". That kind of bias is usually less acceptable.

We have made a little progress towards comparing all the "first in flight" claims in one article; see Talk:First flying machine. Perhaps you'd like to help with that. --A D Monroe III 16:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Counter-Claims

The part about counter-claims against the wright brothers does not belong in the first paragraph. The first paragraph makes the wright brothers achievment seem much more dubious than it actually is. No one can take an encyclopedia seriously that does not credit the wright brothers with being the first to fly. --Henrybaker 6 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

Actually, it's more likely that no one outside of the US would take an encyclopedia seriously that did not allow for alternate views on the Wright brothers. Removing counter claims is just pushing a single POV. An encyclopedia, especially an international one like Misplaced Pages, has a responsibility to present all widely held views evenly. --A D Monroe III 7 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

There is plenty of coverage of counter-claims in the Earlier and later flying craft section. This doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. --Rogerd July 7, 2005 01:00 (UTC)

For balance, it must go in the same paragraph as "credited with the design and construction of the first practical aeroplane", which is the opening paragraph. The only reason not to put it there, or to hide it somewhere lower down the article, is POV bias. --A D Monroe III 7 July 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Monroe, while there may be people outside of the United States who do not recognize the wright brothers as the first fliers, that does not mean that everyone outside of the United States refuses to recognize the wright brothers. It is ridiculous and POV to include this bit about counterclaims in the opening paragraph. There is far less doubt about the wright brothers than is implied by the first paragraph. I am not biased in favor of the Wright brothers, but there is simply no justification for this. Anti-American bias does not belong in an encyclopedia any more than pro-American bias.

--Henrybaker 7 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)

Henrybaker, your tone isn't helping your cause. Phrases like "anti-American", "refuse to recognize", and "ridiculous" aren't invitations to thoughtful discussion.

There are ample justification for counter claims. Other articles in Misplaced Pages claim that the first in flight belongs to others. Do we need to start a campaign to correct those articles as well? Or are you saying this part of Misplaced Pages is for Americans only? Please, if you haven't done so, read those other articles, including their talk pages. We shouldn't rely just on our Cold War childhood education.

Does anyone really claim that no one did anything like flying before the Wright brothers? Or that no one improved on flight after the Wright brothers? There is no single universal definition of "flight" or "airplane", so how can there be only one view of "first to fly an airplane"? I don't know of any reason for denying other widely held views in this one article except for POV bias.

--A D Monroe III 7 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

Monroe,

I don't want to exclude your widely held views. All i'm saying is that the opening paragraph is not the place to put that statement. Putting it in the opening paragraph is POV. There is an entire article on counterclaims. And i'm sorry to say that most of the arguments against the wright brothers seem to stem from anti-americanism, at least in part. It may not be true, but it appears that way. The article on Alberto-Dumas Santos for example is much less negative about Santos' achievements, in the opening paragraph, than is the wright brothers article.

I think that the counter-claims part of this article is valid, and has a valid place. That place, however, is not in the first paragraph. --Henrybaker 7 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)

So, if the other articles displayed the Wrights' counter-claims equally, that would be okay? --A D Monroe III 8 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

My feeling is that if you're going to make a quantitative judgement like "generally credited" then you need to balance it with a mention of the other claims, so people can judge for themselves. Alternatively, you can say "sometimes credited" and leave the reference to other claims to a later paragraph. Ben Arnold 8 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)

My feeling is that to say "generally credited" is already a comprimise. I would prefer the opening line to be something like "The wright brothers were the first to successfully..." Or even "The wright brothers succussefully completed the first documented flight..."

How is this for a comprimise sentence: "Although there are some counter-claims, the Wright brothers are generally accepted to be the first to..." That conveys the same idea as what is there now, but seems to me to be far less POV. Any problems with that? --64.111.138.23 8 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)

That's fine with me, if you use generally credited instead of generally accepted. Ben Arnold 03:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Why all this sensitivity about the fact that the Wright Brothers wasn´t the first to fly? This honor goes instead to the frenchman Clément Ader. Just because it all started with a lie (the Wright Brothers claim) there´s nothing that says that this mistake cannot be corrected. GET OVER IT!!!

I must agree with this last comment. It is indeed Clément Ader who is the first in history that managed to have a machine "heavier than air" take off from the ground for a few seconds in 1890. As for the insistance by Brazilians that it is Santos-Dumont and not the Wright Brothers that is the first to have flown an aircraft, I don't quite understand that Brazilian sensitivity. Santos-Dumont was born in Brazil, but that's about his only connection with Brazil really. Santos-Dumont actually lived in Paris, spoke French, and all his flights were made in the suburbs of Paris, on aircrafts built by French technicians and assistants. His famous aircraft was called Oiseau de Proie, which is French for "bird of prey". In any case, I have never heard anyone in France claiming that Santos-Dumont was the first to fly a plane. What I have always heard is that Clément Ader is the first to have flown a machine heavier than air, while the Wright Brothers are the first to have flown a machine similar in concept to the planes we fly now (i.e. flat fixed wings, instead of the curved mobile wings of Ader). Clément Ader is also the one who coined to word avion (i.e. "airplane") in French, a word then borrowed in Spanish, Portuguese, and many other languages. A derivative of avion is the word aviation, which was borrowed in English. So Ader certainly deserves a note. Hardouin 19:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no point in debating first-flight facts here. It doesn't matter who we know was first or not. For any encyclopedia, it only matters who is widely cited as being first. That includes Ader, the Wrights, Santos-Dumont and many others. For each of these, the respective Misplaced Pages article should note any claims for that person, and also note there are other claims. That's what NPOV is all about.

Again, to help others understand all the viewpoints, we can present all claims together in one place. Probably the place for that is First flying machine. --A D Monroe III 23:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"generally credited"

I've got to say I find generally credited to be grating. In New Zealand, Richard Pearse is generally credited with the accomplishment. I'd prefer often credited or credited in America. Ben Arnold 00:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but note that there has been several pushes to make the wording stronger, rather than weaker. I believe either of your wordings would be more accurate, but changing it may trigger another gang of Wright-chauvanists to once again remove all hints of counter-claims. What may help avert this is some source to cite for the scope of the support for the Wright's claim. Does anyone have an outside reference of the distribution of the different claims?

If we can't come up with a reference, perhaps we can make one. We can start a poll of the personal experience of us Wikepedians. We each record who we were taught was the first to fly along with our background. We can then use the results of the poll to justify the wording used in the article. Examples:

• In USA, I was taught Wrights were first to fly -- Alice 01:23, 29 Marchtober 2005 (UTC) (Example)
• In New Zealand, Pearse -- Bob 02:34, 30 Marchtober 2005 (UTC) (Example)
• In Greece, Icarus -- Carol 03:45, 30 Marchtober 2005 (UTC) (Example)

Once the poll is complete, if we find few non-Americans enter the Wrights, we are justified in saying "credited in America". If many non-Americans enter the Wrights, we are justified in saying "generally credited". If many Americans enter someone other than the Wrights, we are justified in saying "often credited", or even "sometimes credited" if the ratio is high. And so on.

I don't know of any other way to solve this other than relying on our own personal POV. --A D Monroe III 02:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

(My previous comment in this spot, was unnecessary and somewhat rude. My apologies.) Everyone who worked towards giving me pilot wings, has my sincerest of thanks. The question of who did it first has been around for a long time, and really means little to me. One thing I would like to point out, even if it is a particular POV nod to The Brothers is; the shape of propellers (little improved to this day even after billions of dollars spent), the wing spar and rib, of course the rudder, as wall as that damn fine stash of Orville's I so wish I could grow. TTLightningRod 02:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I also prefer 'credited in USA'. In Alberto Santos Dumont page is written 'credit by brazilians'. We must be fair. And in the Brothers Wright page it says a little about their biography and a lot about flights and this is not right. See the Santos Dumont article to see a well written article. --Francisco_barbosa

We all have preferences. If someone has some evidence they can cite of who believes and where, then we have a valid NPOV reason to change the wording. Otherwise, whatever we change will be quickly undone by others with different preferences. --A D Monroe III 04:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wright Bros were not the first ones to FLY!

How can an supposed "aircraft", that needed to be catapulted to lift can be described and recognized as the first to fly? Sorry, but aircraft today are not catapulted, they move by themselves.

Of course, some can say that the Flyer was an very "early design" of aircraft, that doesn't had self-propulsion, as also didn't had jet propulsion or fly-by-wire technology.

Since the late 1890's gliders have flown all over the world. Wright Brothers cannot take this merit of been the first ones to glide. What they have really invented? They invented a propelled glider, that isn't, by any means, an aircraft.

So, the Wright Brothers were the first to fly an self-propelled glider, not aircraft.

The first flight of an aircraft was made in 1906 by Santos-Dumont. It's undisputable.

• But it is disputed; after all, an airplane, even the most advanced one, is technologically just a powered glider. Please read NPOV. The article that discusses these claims in depth is First flying machine.--Pharos 20:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes! Alberto Santos-Dumont achieved the first officially observed powered European flight. No argument there. Nice rudder Alberto! Catapult, shamatapult. Is a carrier launched jet, somehow less than an airplane? (research the Wrights rational for their extended use of the catapult) Yet to take nothing away from the good character of Santos-Dumont, his public generosity was fantastic! (while The Brothers were a bit more cagy.) TTLightningRod 21:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Alberto Santos-Dumont only got 2-3 meters up in the air. Thus he didn't clear the ground effect (but neither did the Wrights until quite a while after what what was called their first flight). The Wrights also managed to fly against the wind and landed lower than they started. However the Wrights did eventually managed to fly, but in my opionion it was much later than December 17, 1903. It took them until 1905 to be able to fly a complete circle. // Liftarn

• The first complete circle was flown on September 20, 1904 by Wilbur Wright. References to this fact are found in Tom Crouch's "The Bishop's Boys" and Fred Howard's "Wilbur and Orville". It can also be directly seen in the U.S. Library of Congress website, which makes available online viewing of the Wright Brothers' own notepads of their flights during 1904-1905. The page of Wilbur's notepad in which he notes the circle flight, with the date, is quite legible. In the period 1903-1905 the Wrights always landed essentially at the same level from which they took off. The flights of December 17,1903 were made on the flat sands near the beach, not from Kill Devil Hill. The 1904-05 flights near Dayton were made at Huffman Prairie, a flat meadow with no hills. -- DFB 4.227.254.28 21:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed?

An anon user, 201.19.95.177, has added the {{Disputed}} tag to this article (or tried to).

Although there have been discussions of the wording of "generally credited", I don't know of any dispute that merits that tag. Unless someone objects, I'll remove the tag. --A D Monroe III 20:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It's removed. --A D Monroe III 01:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Its very well but!!

It is all very interesting but I tend to agree with the comment that Richard Pearce could very well have been the first to fly! Als a reccent replica of his flying machine did just that Flew ! you only have to look at the picture of a microlight flying over the monument to him at the Motac museum in NZ to see that he realy did have it right and some 9 months before the Wright bros

ref Wings over Waitohi - the story of Richard Pearse. by C G Rodliffe

isbn:- 0-473-050000-5 —preceding unsigned comment by 86.141.23.228 (talk • contribs) 08:23, October 26, 2005

I never knew that the Wright brothers could be so controversial! --Jennie Ambrose 05:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Though Pearse himself later conceded that the Americans deserved the honour of being the first to make a controlled and sustained flight, it is almost certain that he got into the air under power before they did.” Gordon Ogilvie, “The Riddle of Richard Pearse”, Reed Books, Auckland, New Zealand, 1994, p.xiv. --206.124.140.58 19:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

First Public Flight

The first public flight by the Wright brothers was 8 Aug 1908. --84.189.142.208 19:13, 31. Jan. 2006 (UTC)

That was not actually the first public flight, although it may have been the first organized demonstration. In 1904 and 1905, they flew on Huffman Prairie, next to a trolley car line, where many people saw them. The trolley car drivers used to stop so that people could watch. When the Wrights were later accused of secrecy, they produced a list of more than 60 people who had witnessed flights. They had signed affidavits from leading citizens of Dayton, the city auditor, a bank president and so on. (Kelly, Crouch) --JedRothwell 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

just a think

If Wright brothers can be claimed as inventors of the plane, i think the inventor of the cart can be claimed as the inventor of the car too.

New 14-bis revision by anon

Does the part about the 14-bis belong in this article? It doesn't have any direct relevance to the Wright brothers, so I suggest that it should be merged into the first flying machine article. That article is where the controversy belongs, not this one. The first flying machine article is about a controversy, while this article is about two people and their accomplishments, not differing interpretations on what they did. Willy Logan 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above comments. In the not-too-distant future, I intend to remove (or drastically shrink) the 14-bis section, absent any persuasive cries of foul. 4.227.252.225 20:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC) DonFB

Good idea. Go for it! --JedRothwell 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. 4.227.254.146 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC) -- DonFB

Role of catapult misunderstood

The statement that the Wrights "required a weight-driven catapult-rail system (in principle similar to those still used in modern aircraft carriers) to get off the ground" is incorrect. They did not "require" it, but it was more convenient and safer. The first flights in Kitty Hawk were conducted without a catapult. They did have a strong head wind, but they could have taken off without it, albeit with a longer rail. In the summer of 1904, in Dayton, the Wrights had difficulty taking off without a catapult, because the air pressure was lower than Kitty Hawk in wintertime. Combs estimates the difference was like trying to take off at 4,700 feet above sea level (The "density altitude difference" is 815 feet elevation plus 3,885 feet from the higher temperature - see "Kill Devil Hill", p. 239.) By 1908 the engine was more powerful and they could take off without a catapult, but it was convenient and it allowed a short takeoff.

I deleted a statement here saying they could not take off at Dayton "because there was no wind." It is true that before they built the catapult they sometimes did wait until a headwind came along, but in general, they preferred to fly without wind.

I corrected the discussion about the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale rules. The rules were changed to exclude the Wrights for a few months, when the French got the mistaken impression that the Wrights could not fly without a catapult. In November 1908 Wilbur Wright claimed the Aero-Club's 90 meter prize by extending the rail and taking off without a catapult. During this flight he demonstrated his "contempt" for the Federation rules by deliberately flying just over 90 meters even though he had previously flown much higher. (See T. Crouch, "The Bishop's Boy's," p. 381.) --JedRothwell 20:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also please note that the Wrights used skids, instead of wheels, because wheels do not work where they flew: on a sandy beach and a rough, natural Midwest prairie. If they had used wheels, as some skeptics here suggest they should have, the would have been killed in one of the numerous near-fatal accidents they suffered. There was nothing "impractical" about their landing gear, despite the skeptical comments here. --JedRothwell 02:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I really think that saying that they actually "didn´t need" catapult but considered it "safier" is just another way to say that they didn´t domain, by the time, the technique to get the plane off the ground by it´s own. And state that the use of skids was due the terrain where the flight took place seems just ridiculous: it was just a matter of find a more appropriate area. What the Wrights did on 1908 and so on does not matter in this discusion, because it was plenty after the supposedly first flight of them. 201.6.119.5 20:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Domain" must be a typo; I am not sure what you mean.

In any case, the catapult was safer and more convenient until they made more powerful engines around 1908. They could have made more powerful engines sooner but that cost a lot of money. The Wright brothers operated on a very tight budget.

It may seem ridiculous to you that they chose difficult terrain, but that is because you are not familiar with life in 1905, or with the Wright brothers' limited finances and resources. What do you suppose the choices were? There were no paved parking lots in 1905, and no airstrips, so obviously they had to fly over a grassy field. Not just any field. It had to be large, without crops, reasonably level, close to the Wright's workshop, and it had to be rent free, because they could not afford to pay. Under the circumstances they were lucky to find a place. Fortunately, a generous man named Huffman let them use his property. It was not ideal. As I mentioned, it was rough, undeveloped prairie, and there is no way a wheeled aircraft could have landed on it without killing the pilot. As it was they were nearly killed several times, and the aircaft was badly damaged and rebuilt repeatedly.

Skids were also easier to deal with, easier to repair, and cheaper. Wheels would have been one more headache and a useless expense, and the Wrights had more than enough headaches.

Let me add that if you think the Wrights choose skids on a whim, or they selected the field without checking if better places were available, you know nothing about them and nothing about early aviation. They were extremely meticulous. They checked every detail as if their lives depended upon it -- because their lives did depend on it. One loose cable, a misfiring engine, or a lump and prairie grass in the wrong place could have killed them on countless occasions. They planned every move and thought through every aspect of their work. In France, Wilbur took hours to set up and prepare for a flight even when a large audience was waiting, and he would make the crowd wait all day if he felt the weather was not right. Even though the Wrights were extremely careful, Orville was nearly killed in 1908, and his passenger, Lt. Selfridge, was killed.

Other early pilots were not as meticulous or not as lucky. By October 1912, 191 had been killed. Anthony Fokker wrote: "every flying field I have known is soaked with the blood of my friends and brother pilots. . . . My memory is one long obituary list." (H. S. Villard, "Contact!" p. 240)

--JedRothwell 17:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Influences

I'm rm a link to Leonardo da Vinci: Drawing on the work of Sir George Cayley, Octave Chanute, Otto Lilienthal, Leonardo da Vinci and Samuel Pierpont Langley... While da Vinci was undoubtedly an innovator in many fields and produced conceptual drawings of aircraft, I don't find that his work directly supported that of the Wright Bros. (IIRC, Mythbusters went to the trouble of actually building the most promising of da Vinci's designs and was unable to make it fly.) We might list every aviation pioneer who antedated the Wrights, but I think it's more appropriate to speak only of proximate influences.

Indeed, I look askance at not only this string of names, but at many aspects of this article. It seems there is a concerted effort to cut the Wrights down to size, to develop every line of argument that might tend to reduce their priority. This type of excessive revisionism-for-revisionism's-sake is beneath us. The Wrights, like all modern inventors, stand on the shoulders of the giants who went before; but this ought not detract from their significant and remarkable contribution. John Reid 03:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your closing remark: amen! I agree that this article needs definite improvement. Willy Logan 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Length of the Article and Santos Dumont

I have recently made some contributions to the WB article. I notice it is now verging toward excessive length, as defined by Misplaced Pages administrators. At the risk of rekindling an old debate, I would suggest removing the Santos Dumont section, while maintaining an existing link elsewhere in the text to the very good separate Santos Dumont article. There is a great deal that can be said about the WB, but devoting this much space to S-D seems unnecessary. I've known of Santos Dumont for many years, but I confess surprise that there could be any debate about who made "real" flights first, given the photographic and other documentation available. I would rather see the space now taken by the S-D section used to flesh out the actual WB story: perhaps to include details of their bumpy efforts to win a contract; their relations with Chanute and with Amos Root of "Bee Culture" fame; the patent war with Curtiss, and any number of other details that could further improve the article and shed light on their lives and accomplishments. -- DonFB 4.227.255.5 09:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A.M. Herring?

When googling for information about Allvelo I found http://www.didik.com/horseles/horse.htm whwre it says a person called A.M. Herring flw in 1899 and it's supported by a photo. However, the name sounds suspicius ("I am (a red) herring"). I found another source, but it's just a copy of the first. I continued to search and found some more.. It seems to have been a powered glider. // Liftarn

Yes, Augustus Herring was a notable player at the time. He even visited the Wrights at Kitty Hawk, when Chanute brought him along. He did put a compressed air motor on a hang glider in 1898. He was also a rather shady character, who was employed for a time by both Langley and Chanute and fell out of favor with each of them. He sent a virtual extortion letter to the Wrights soon after the 1903 power flights claiming he had earlier patents that entitled him to a share of any profits; the Wrights (justifiably) ignored him. Later, he went into business with Curtiss, who ultimately discovered Herring had no significant aeronautical patents and ended his business dealings with Herring.

DonFB 4.228.111.200 16:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably not a bicycle chain

I hate to nitpick but . . .

Someone here wrote: "The chain used in the engine was, naturally, a bicycle chain." I doubt it! I do not think a bicycle chain could support 11 hp of strain. I have been looking around trying to find out exactly what sort of chain it is. If anyone knows, please let me know here and/or correct the article.

I will try to contact the author of this article to see if he knows:

http://www.vintageaircraft.org/featured/2003%20-%20Vol.%2031,%20No.%2012%20-%20Details_%20Looking%20Closely%20at%20an%20Historical%20Reproduction.pdf

- Jed

Well, looking at the reconstructions of the various models at the Dayton Air Show in 2003, they certainly looked like bicycle chains -- and those weren't the only parts on the planes that looked like bicycle parts.David 23:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There are bicycle parts. The rollers on the launching monorail are bicycle wheel hubs. But my guess is the chain must have been a heavier gauge than a bicycle chain. I have broken bicycle chains before, and I sure don't pedal with 11 hp!

Roller chain strength is measured in newtons (force). See: http://www.renold.com/

--JedRothwell 14:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised to find that 1903 bicycle parts were sturdier than today's -- they tended to build machines to last and like tanks. The bike chain on the Huffy I had as a kid in the 50s was a lot heavier and sturdier than the one on my Motobecane today.David 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

From the 1998 Dover edition of Fred Howard's "Wilbur and Orville", pp 108-109: "Sprockets and chains used to drive bicycles came ready-made. Chains strong enough to drive propellers were another matter, but the Wrights knew where to turn. The Diamond Chain Company of Indianapolis supplied them with chains of the type used in early automobile transmissions, made to their specifications." I've been working on this article and can make the change, or feel free to use this info to make the edit. 4.227.255.224 23:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC) DonFB

HA! Yes - The Diamond Chain Company. I thought I remembered something like that. Thanks. The nitpicker brigade strikes again! I guess we could change the article to say: "The chain used in the engine resembled a bicycle chain." Or just cut this sentence. --JedRothwell 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I propose the following rewording of the opening sentence:
"The Wright Brothers, Orville Wright (August 19, 1871 - January 30, 1948) and Wilbur Wright (April 16, 1867 - May 30, 1912), designed and built the first practical airplane and are generally credited with making the first controlled, powered, heavier-than-air flight." 4.228.111.141 22:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC) -- DonFB

Copyright insanity - removing a 1909 photo

Someone or something (person or robot) removed a photo from this article, with the following comment:

"Removing image with no copyright information. Such images that are older than seven days may be deleted at any time."

This is ridiculous. The caption to the photo said it was taken in 1909. Surely the copyright has expired! Since this article deals with events that occurred before 1912, obviously all the photographs are out of copyright.

I do not know how to go about reversing this change, but I wish someone would. This concern about copyrights have gotten out of hand. --JedRothwell 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's really not entirely ridiculous (though I often have the same immediate reaction as you); the editor who uploaded the image did not apply a PD-US tag. Also, not every photo taken before 1923 is necessarily PD-US. The photo has to be published in the US before 1923 to be so eligible (to mention only the most frequent kind of PD images, 'though there are also a number images of 100+ year old paintings that get tagged for deletion).

I have added the PD-US tag to the photo (making what I take to be a reasonable assumption in this case) and restored the photo to the article.

If you really hate to see this sort of thing happen, you might want to make a habit of checking Category:Images with unknown copyright status and Category:images with unknown source periodically, looking for old images that you can tag and/or find a source for. It can be frustrating work, but you may be able to prevent some of these deletions, and it will help you to see why this stuff happens-- hundreds of copyrighted images are uploaded daily, and only a tiny proportion of them are in fact PD images that are simply missing the tag and/or source info. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Pride commeth... The image that I thought I'd saved was deleted anyway. I'm checking on it... -- Mwanner | Talk 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that a., I apparently hit Preview but not Save on my attempt to add the PD-US tag, and b., the source for the image was a dead link, so it would have been deleted eventually anyway. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The image is in the collection of Wright State University, which says permission should be requested to use the picture. The image online can be viewed at the OhioLINK Digital Media Center at this address -- http://worlddmc.ohiolink.edu/History/Previews?oid=1147700&asset=1147700&format=list&results=6&sort=title&collection=all&year=any&searchstatus=1&hits=125&count=52&p=1&searchmark=0&viewno=0 -- The information page which says permission should be requested is at this address -- http://worlddmc.ohiolink.edu/History/Details?oid=1147700 -- Wright-brothers.org (which may be identical to the apparently defunct First-to-Fly.com) has the picture at -- http://www.wright-brothers.org/History%20Images/1906-1909/1909%20Flyer%20and%20Derrick%20Pau.jpg 4.228.111.157 07:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC) -- DonFB

Add Smithsonian Education link?

Hello. I am a writer for the Smithsonian Institution's Center for Education and Museum Studies, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Stories of the Wrights' Flight" is available for free download at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/wright/index.html

If you think your audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include the link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

Hey, it's Misplaced Pages, the online encyclopedia that anyone can update! You could have done this yourself!! But I will add it. David 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks, David. I wasn't sure how it worked.

Recent edits by User:200.168.177.181

I have reverted the recent edits by User:200.168.177.181, despite having no particular ax to grind regarding the Wright's claim, because the editor so clearly had a POV problem; witness removing the word "first" from "Before attempting their first powered flights of the year", where it has nothing to do with who made the first flights in history. Besides, these changes open the whole can of worms again. That said, I may go back and see if some of his/her edits aren't salvagable. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice you restored User 200.168.177.181's edit that cut the words "most skilled"..."in the world" which referred to the Wrights's gliding ability in the autumn of 1903. I won't make a big stink about this, but I think it is factually correct to say they were "the most skilled glider pilots in the world" at that time. I have not seen authoritative writing that says otherwise. If someone else was more skilled at that time, with longer time and distance in the air, who was it? 4.228.111.157 04:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC) DonFB

I realise that they may well have been the most skilled glider pilots in the world at that time, but how would one ever prove such an assertion? It didn't seem to me to be essential to the article, and the last thing this article needs is unprovable, inflamatory statements. So thanks for leaving it as is. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to prove. The distance and time records for gliding records were widely known. Very few people had ever glided anywhere, because it was so dangerous. Lilienthal set the previous record of 300 feet. He was killed while gliding. He was very famous and I am sure no one ever glided farther. It would have been in all the newspapers.

The Wrights set gliding records every day at Kitty Hawk in 1902. They routinely went over 550 feet, and the record was 622.5 feet in 26 seconds. They flew in control with relative safety, whereas Lilienthal was always in great peril.

The sight of the Wrights gliding was so extraordinary that ships passing by would slow down and veer toward shore so that passengers could watch. --JedRothwell 20:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)