Talk:Alberto Santos-Dumont/Archive 1

The "Controversy vs. Wright Brothers" section
MR. EDITOR, SANTOS DUMONT IS THE FATHER OF THE AIRPLANE, WHETHER HE IS THE FATHER OF OF AVIATION IS ALSO UP FOR DISCUSSION. THE WRIGHT BROTHERS "THING" WAS A GLIDER, IT NEEDED A CATAPULT TO LAUNCH AND THEN GLIDED DOWN. THE FATHER OF THE AUTONOMOUS AIRPLANE IS UNDENIABLY ALBERTO SANTOS-DUMONT, DAMMIT WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU AMERICANS TO RECOCNIZE THAT ALTHOUGH YOU INVENTED 1000 WONDERFUL THINGS THAT IN PARTICULAR THE AIRPLANE WAS *NOT* INVENTED BY YOU....GEEZUS... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.17.9 (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please use care when editing this "Controversy vs. Wright Brothers" section or otherwise addressing the issues it contains. Although contributors are always encouraged to be bold in updating pages, in this section, it is particularly important that the article maintains a neutral point of view.

In general, the details of the arguments with regard to the Wrights and others are best made in the article on first flying machine. Replaying this disagreement, except in very short form, on every article related to early flight uses up a lot of space and energy and can be very distracting from the primary topic at hand.

Please see the discussions below for further details. Also, please feel free to raise any questions on this talk page before editing the article itself.

Blimpguy 15:48, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The section is appallingly long in relation to the material about the man himself. I'm thinking of paring it down to just the essentials of the competing claims to "inventor of the fixed wing aircraft.Zebulin (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I change my mind. I have no desire to touch the wording of that involved debate with a ten-foot pole.  Instead I recommend that we replace the section with a note of the controversy and find a home for it in another article with a link to it here.Zebulin (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Once Wikipedia should be neutral, I think there is no why have a section about Wright brothers on this article if it also haven't in Wright brothers article, this section has been removed when I copied there Talk:Wright_brothers, if Wikipedia is neutral, soon this section shows North-Americans feelings like it also show Brasilians feelings in Wright brothers article, and this free encyclopedia is not a place for polemical discussions.--Luizdl (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy vis-a-vis Wright brothers section lacks support and arguements for S. Dumont
I've been reading the "Controversy vis-a-vis Wright brothers", and there are many, many arguements explaining why the wright brothers should be given the credit, and none in support of Santos Dumont, except some parts that mention that Dumont was more concerned with publicity than the Wrights, but that's no arguement. I hope someone that has good counter arguements in favor of Dumont would post something to balance it out a little bit more, because it's looking a little one sided over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.161.220.181 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL what a wonder... who do you think moderates these discussions? It's so hypocritical to ask people to try and be bold when making arguments but still NEUTRAL, when the very people who decide what will be displayed on the article's page are clearly biased and taking side with the Wright brothers... but it's pretty funny, when all they did was:

"HEY, I'VE INVENTED A FLYING MACHINE. BUT... I DON'T WANNA SHOW ANYONE. PLUS, IT DOESN'T REALLY TAKE OFF ON IT'S OWN, NEEDS A STRONG GUST OF WIND OR A CATAPULT. BUT IT'S STILL AN AIRPLANE, OK??!?!?!1111oneone! KTHX"

Please... their THING was as much of an airplane as a ROCK WITH WINGS. I can't believe this is actually considered controversial. THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. They did not invent the airplane. If did, they weren't smart enough to show it and prove it to someone that would actually verify their version like Santos-Dumont did.

By the way, I've invented the iPod, but I wanted to keep it for myself, and then Steve Jobs came up with the same idea and sold it to the world. Edit that on his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.28.211.114 (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

previous discussion
(The following is the old -now outdated- discussion about the first flight controversy.) We appear once again to be stumbling on the wright brothers vs SD controversy. I believe that version as of 15:44, 2 Apr 2004 by Jorge Stolfi has done the best job to date of presenting a balanced view.

'''If I may say. I'm Brazillian and live in England, at least here nobody ever heard of Santos Dumont and say that the Brothers Wright were the first men to fly an airplane. Well, they in fact did fly, of course they did, however the Brazillian was the first one to actually take of, fly and land. THe Brothers simply used a "glyder" and a catapult...They didn't create an aircraft that would take off, fly and land all on it's own. Alberto did so he deserves the credit. Abou public flighs, what flights! That thing needed a catapul to take of for Christ sake! Just a point, did you know that a Brazillian priest actually developed sound waves systems (radios) before Marcolini? Yes, this is another intresting argument but it doesn't come to case now...'''

I'm sorry to say that I see the changes by Greyengine5 have been a step back towards an unbalanced view. I understand that this is an emotional topic. I do not want to start an "edit war" by reverting the changes, but we really need some discussion as to how to proceed. The current version is not, in my view, a reasonable presentation.

Blimpguy 22:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I reverted the changes, because I do not think the article has been improved by them. It is better to seperate out Santos-Dumont's documentable achievements from the Wright Brothers controversy, as that version does.


 * Not to say that the version I reverted to is the perfect statement of this, of course, but User:Greyengine5's changes destroy that seperation which I think is important. &mdash;Morven 22:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I can understand the desire to keep them seperated, though I would have prefered a more carefull seperation of my comments then just reverting it all. Also, I think these invisible comments inserted into the text need to stop, and discussion needs to place here on the talk page.
 * While I quite admire Dumont, I dont think Brazil or others do him any service by trying to elevate what he did. For me, what he did stands on its own merits-and his contributions stand as real accomplishments in the developlent of flight. That said, expanding what he did to include titles like 'father of flght' is very POV and highly controversial. The key issues made to elevate Dumonts flight- dismissal of evidence and definition are indeed seperate - and but both stand on weak ground. The large number of photo's, witnesses, and other evidence of the Wrights flights before the Dumont  are not easily invalidated. The other issue of using special definitions to exclude the wrights claims as a 'true aircraft' are actually quite allright- The difference between powered planes and gliders is a grey area. Whats not ok is to expand that fufilling of a specific defintion to a broader claim. Indeed, for the general idea of aircraft there were many motorized craft of varying levels of credabilty that took into the air before the Wrights. However, only the Wrights flyer spawned other even more successfull powered flying machines -Dumonts plane included. I am working on a page for Early flying machines that will hopefully the many pioneers of aviation in perspective, and offer some relief to the many debates over early flight. Dumont is among the tougher cases -  a claim both being the subject of intense rejection and elevation = so its no wonder this page on him as run into problems. I understand people feel stongly about many of the early flight claims, largely due to involvement of national or cultural pride. In engaing in work on early flight I guess should have been more prepared for the counter-editing, vauge insults, etc, that easily happens- I do belive it can be worked out objectively however.    Greyengine5 00:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Greyengine5, Sorry for going ahead and editing things without discussing them first. (The invisible comments seemed to be simply a convenient way to explain the purpose of the sections to casual contributors who might not read the Talk page.) Anyway, although I am Brazilian I do not have neither special knowledge of the field nor any interest in the polemic; my goal was to improve the textual quality of the page, e.g. by sectioning the text and improving (?) the grammar. I have tried to keep all the original comments, and only delete things that were redundant or did not seem to make sense.

As said in the inline comments, I have tried to separate (1) undisputed facts from (2) disputed "facts", and get all of these (and the respective arguments) together in one section. I do not think that this page is the proper place to give a full account of all pro and con arguments and try to win readers one way or the other. This page should only warn readers that the polemic exists and give a flavor of what the two sides are saying; readers who care should read the external links.

Since I started editing, I have found out that some things that, based on the original text, I had though to be (1) were actually (2) -- e.g. the Wright Flyer *could* fly without catapult assist, there were some failry public Wright flights, etc. So I think that it is more prudent to trim the Dispute section even further -- the less it is said, the better...

Here is some of the text that I had cleaned up but, on second thought, it seems best to leave out or tone down:


 * This ... was ... the first craft in the world to take off from the ground with its own landing gear and on its own power (unlike the Wright Flyers, which took off from rails with the assistance of a catapult-like mechanism).


 * His supporters point out that the rail-and-catapult approach used by the Wright brothers was not an arbitrary choice but a necessary feature of their design, given its much larger weight-to-power ratio.


 * (Some also point to the relatively low altitude of Santos-Dumont's flights and claim that he may have obtained extra lift by the so-called ground effect.)


 * just as the Wrights studied the works of Otto Lilienthal and other early aviation pioneers.

Jorge Stolfi 02:11, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Iv made some more changes- please review as well. I really like your idea of seperating things, something that could be usefull for pages to I think. I inlcluded some the things you mention, so be sure to check them out so we can discuss them so more if there issues. Any info on number of witnesses/publicity of flight, and un-assisted/ assisted flights of the Wrights and other aircraft is interesting stuff, so feel free to pass a long if you come across info about these. I hope to gather up a comprehensive review the machines before, and- as seem prudent - ones shortly after such as the 14-Bis. I agree the inserted messages are convient (heck even repsonded intially in them), though I did take them out as I'v never seen these used in other articles (just for the sake of standardizing). It may end up being a good idea though for the reasons you mention there. My concern about the polemic issues is that outside of certian circles there is not much controversy over his accomplishments- of either side. It needs to be mentioned certainly, but- and I agree here- less needs to be said to tread lightly on the matter of various claims. I certianly appreciate your sp, grammar fixes- I apologize for not checking these enough. On a totally unrelated note, thanks for introducing me to the mdash! Greyengine5 04:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well done folks. The disputed section looks very reasonable to my Santos-friendly but North American eye.

The history of this article has several instances of revisiting the santos/wright issue. I have added an inline comment directing any would-be re-editors to alert them to talk page before editing further.

Blimpguy 15:54, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello again!- I put some stuff, just for the 'dispute section'. I changed the to lower case, still very noticable just a little more subdued. I took out the reference to either it being 'generally' or 'many' to aviod the matter altogether. I wanted to seperate out the claims about ground effect as thats not usally in recognized in terms of the flights classification. I seperated out the 'powered glider things' as well. As for the years of advancement in engine technology during the period I tried to make it more general, rather then specific years. Also I think we need more references to Dumont's other planes, after all he had a lot better designs/flights then just the Bis, like the Demoiselle, etc. If anyone has list of all his planes that might be a nice addition. Greyengine5 19:36, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I reworded the Wright claim a bit -- added back "most commonly" -- how does that sound? Also reworked the new paragraph a bit. I think I made only 1 content change -- I removed the "these claims are put forward by supporters of other folks" -- in fact most claims one way or other are put forward by partisans. So, restating it here sounds a little POV.

Also, I have a list of all of SD's aircraft. Where would you like it? Blimpguy 20:02, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yea i agree there. I tweak that ending to meke it shorter. I think the list is fine as another section added on- if its really long is suppose we could make it a new page though. If you have a lot of other data we could make a table out of it as well to inlcude things like date, hp etc. Greyengine5 20:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Has it ever been established that Alberto Dumont was even aware of the Wright Bros., during the years he was working on "heavier than air" craft. before he made his first successful flight in 14 BIS? It seems rather unlikely, in lieu of the novel nature of his aircraft designs, compared to those of others,including the Wright Brothers' designs.

I have never heard a strong argument either way. Even if he had heard of them, it is doubtful that he would have been much influinced. The Brothers were generally dismissed as cranks prior to their public flights in 1908. Blimpguy 16:46, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some sites say he became inspired to work on planes after he heard of the wright brothers, so its unlikey he didn't know of them. The Aero club, with which he was involved, knew of the wrights even before they flew and made similair designs. Keep in mind that his initial planes(not the later ones) had rear facing props, a control surface in front, and a bi-wing design- more similair to the wrights then most of other early plane designs. Neverthless, I agree more research is needed to find the degree to which this is the case. Also, It might be worth noting history revisions under Getulio Vargas regime in Brazil- as there's more to this then just Dumont being brazilian. In addition, while the wrights early flights were indeed sketchy -only a short 'hop' for there public flight with the flyer 2 in 1904- i think its a bit of strech to say they were dismissed as 'cranks' all the way up to 1908 (maybe in europe?). I think that dumont's flight was a much nicer first flight of the airplane- lots of witnesses, more 'complete' airplane compared to the 1903 flights. However, people had been making short - low flights since adder (and perhaps before) and it was the wrights who could improve there designs to fly- for miles and high in the air(before 1906). Heck there were plenty of people who flew gliders farther then most of these first flights, and a lot of motorized ones that made it into the air. Finally, I was wondering if your(blimbguy) going to add the info on this aircraft. Im pretty good at doing wikicode for tables if there's enough info for for that. Greyengine5 19:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Started to enter the list of aircraft on this page and it clearly is going to be too long to work with. So I created a new page listing all Santos-Dumont aircraft I will try to flesh it more details when I have time. Or, hopefully, others will notice its creation and add the details on their own Blimpguy 12:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the honor of first effective heavier-than-air flight is most commonly assigned the Wright brothers.
well, in the europe, and more than half of world this is not true.

commonly this is assigned in eua, and some direct related eua countries.


 * The history log of this article clearly shows that this is a controversial point. Much work has gone into the wording of the article to obtain NPOV.  Contributors from Brazil, the US and other countries have all worked hard on it.  It is the most satisfactory statement that we have been able to agree on.


 * However, there is always room for improvement. So, if you have some data on this point, in particular some objective, verifiable information about opinions held outside of Brazil and the US (as we already have lots of experience with opinions inside those two countries) then please present it.  We can always use more concrete data.


 * Blimpguy 00:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re knowledge of Wright bros in Europe..they were well known to the Paris Club, specifically Octave Chanute's address to the Club in March 1903 describing the Wright's 1902 glider trials including the famous photo of the coordinated turn to the right using wing warping and rudder. That talk was the basis of Germany's denial of a patent to the Wrights, since the wing warping was to them "in the public domain" at that moment and prior to the Wrights officially being awarded a patent. (In the US, you have one year grace period after divulging details to be granted a patent, in Europe there is no grace period). Many early (1904-1906)European gliders were called "type du Wright" if styled after the Wright design. Voisin claimed he "never heard of the Wrights" which seems very unlikely. The St Louis Worlds Fair set up a triangular course and hoped to set up a competition between Santos Dumont and Wrights. The Wrights declined the offer, and Dumont came, but when his dirigible was vandalized, he returned to France in anger. They clearly knew of one another, but never met. By the way, Earnest Archdeacon was French, not American

--Pegasus2PH 05:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To shed a little light on the subject: A born Brazilian and Rio de Janeiro resident, I have had the opportunity to live in other South Amerincan countries, such as Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and - albeit for a brief time - in Equador. In all these countries I have come to see that the "general knowledge" awards Santos Dumont with the credit to first flown aircraft, and also with the title of "Father of Aviation". It is such the case, actually, that during high school classes (at least in Brazil) the name of the Wright Bros. isnt even mentioned; I myself came to learn of this Dumont vs. Wright dispute in a much older age. As for France (wouldnt know in the rest of Europe) Dumont is also credited with such sucesses, if only to "honor" the bond he had with that country.Lt Doc


 * I agree. As an exchange student, I met a whole classrooms of high schools students that never heard of the Wright brothers.  I don't know of any source cited that would justify the statement "most commonly assigned the Wright brothers".  My personal experience is that this is not true.  Without any reference given, I think that the "most commonly" should be replaced with "often".  --A D Monroe III 9 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)


 * This section was (at one point) carefully worded with "In some countries, particularly Brazil ..." and "In other countries, particularly the United States, ..." in an attempt to obtain NPOV on this most controversial of points. Somewhere along the line the parallel wording was removed. I've put it back.  Does that seem fair?  Blimpguy 19:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Hopefully, it won't get "improved" again by editors that ignore all this discussion.  --A D Monroe III 20:22, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

new images
I uploaded three images of the 14 bis aircraft that must be unorphaned.


 * [[Image:14bis2.jpg | 80px]]


 * 80px
 * [[Image:14-bis-wth-air-ballon-aid.jpg | 80px]]

some of those images should be moved to a future 14 Bis article

--Alexandre Van de Sande 21:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Here are some links to several great images related to Santos Dumont work in the photo library of the "Aero Club de France":


 * http://www.aeroclub.com/images/santosdumont14bis/photosportaits_web/FrameSet.htm
 * http://www.aeroclub.com/images/santosdumont14bis/photos_web/FrameSet.htm
 * http://www.aeroclub.com/images/santosdumont14bis/illustrations_web/FrameSet.htm
 * http://www.aeroclub.com/images/santosdumont14bis/caricatures_web/FrameSet.htm


 * And here is a promotional video of the centennial of Santos Dumont's flight, that includes a lot of very interesting footage of Santos Dumont, including the 14-bis flight. Lots of government propaganda in the video, but with some interesting material:


 * http://www.14bis.mil.br/multimidia/santos_dumont_cd.mpg


 * Nelbr 19:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Seaplane crash
There was a horrible seaplane crash on December 3, 1928 but Santos was not on board. The flight occured when Santos was returning to Brazil. Several members of the Brazilian scientific community boarded a seaplane that flew out to greet his ship. However, the plane crashed with the loss of all on board. The loss only deepened Santos' dispondency over the horrors created by "his" invention.

Santos did crash one of his own airships into Monoco bay some years earlier. That was the only mishap that I know of involving a water crash.

However, I know of no case where Santos himself was onboard a seaplane that crashed.

If the contributor could site some authoratative, independent reference with regard to this incident it would be most helpful.

Details of Suicide
I've read reports that Santos' suicide was by hanging, but I've never heard the "shower hose" claim entered by a non-logged in user. Since I have no way to verify that fact, I'm going to back out the specific item until it can be verified by somebody else. Blimpguy 11:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure, but most Brazilian media say that he commited suicied by hanging (well, at least, what I had read or watched about him and his suicide was that he did it by hanging). I did not find any media in english to comprove that, but many Brazilian sites, as well as two old Brazilian magazines that I had read say it.


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (and many others, in Portuguese)

In a Globo Ciencia magazine (science magazine published by Globo), it is written that he hanged himself in the shower hose with his necktie - depressed by seeing the airplane being used as a warfare in a Brazilian Civil War (1932 Constitutionalist Revolution - Sao Paulo's state against national forces). Ana Jessica 04:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue may be one of translation. Somebody who knows Portuguese may be able to straighten it out. In English works (particularly Paul Hoffman's recent book in which he interviewed the elevator boy -- now an old man but still alive -- who gave SD the ride up to his room) the description on Page 311 is that he used "two bright-red ties from his flying days in Paris" and was found "dangling at the end of the ties from a hook on the bathroom door -- a method of suicide that could have succeeded only for someone so light". Does that match the Portuguese descriptions? Blimpguy 13:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently yes. He was a very lightweight and short man. jggouvea 13:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * the pbs documentary on him called "wings of madness" also states he hanged himself.
 * It's true that the NOVA producers came to the same conclusion. However, this is hardly an independent source. The PBS special was based in large part (including its title) on Hoffman's book that is cited above and Hoffman himself appears in the NOVA show. Blimpguy 12:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ailerons
Dumont did make an attempt to steer by use of paddles located between the upper and lower wings on each side of the aircraft on his modified 14 Bis Nov 1906 model. Its not quite the same as an aileron, which is a change in the chord of the wing and which changes the angle of attack and therefore lift, exactly what wing warping does. Until demonstrated by Wilbur Wright in 1908, no European aircraft deliberately banked to turn, they skidded the tail around in a flat turn. In fact, the high dihedral (wing tips higher than the root) was specifically to keep the aircraft upright. I'm pretty certain Dumont was thinking of the way a canoe paddle creating drag on one side turns the canoe to that side, and was doing the same. Demoiselle (1909) adopted the Wright method of wing warping. By 1912, Glenn Curtis created moveable ailerons in an (unsuccessful legal but commercially successful) attempt to get around the Wright patent.

--Pegasus2PH 05:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

additional history of Santos Dumont
Does anyone have any information about:

1. who actually built 14-bis? SD did not build his dirigibles, and unlikely he would have built 14-bis. Probably Voisin, but I'd like to have concrete info. If so, who did the engineering? How similar were Bleriot's and Dumont's airplanes, if both built by Voisin?

2. Why did none of SD's models after 14 bis and before Demoiselle get off the ground? Who built them?

3. Demoiselle is radically different from 14-bis, and not just in size. Wing curvature, monoplane rather than box kite, rudder/elevator position, use of wing warping, pilot seated, and especially use of a tapered propeller rather than paddle-like prop are some differences. What caused him to make these changes?

4. Why did SD's relationship with nobility in Europe sour considerably after (1910)? Esp with Princess Isabel of Brazil, with whom he was once very cordial?

Any info, Id appreciate. Citations, please, if you have them.

--Pegasus2PH 01:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The following is drawn from the books listed in the article.

1) Santos had his own workshop and workmen. He often "rolled up his sleeves" on the various building projects.  His first balloon was built by others, but he designed it.  Likewise, Santos did his own design and engineering work.

2) Don't know.

3) Don't know the answer to this one. Santos was very much focused on small, light craft.  So as to the overall design direction, the progression to smaller isn't surprising.

4) Don't know.

Blimpguy 22:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have been pursuing answers to Santos Dumont since I was 16, and Im well into my 50's. Im American, but wife, children, and in-laws Brazilian. I'm one of the few who have actually seen SD's embalmed heart at ITA (Brazil's Aeronautical Military Academy).. in 1967. I'm an experienced instrument pilot and student of early aviation. What frustrates me is that all fundamental questions about SD's 14bis/15bis work has so little hard data...no lift tables, no math..no correspondence, nothing. You can't build an aircraft in a vaccuum..All we really know is that he showed up with an airplane. I know SD supposedly destroyed his records after problems w French at WW1, but nothing????? Something this important???? I'm hoping that, with the internet, if there is anything out there, we'll find it. There must be a progression of hypothesis, testing, failure, analysis, retesting and success.

BTW, I am highly skeptical that SD would "roll up his sleeves". I know hundreds of Brazilians in middle and wealthy class;(all Paulistas or Mineiros like SD) not one has a toolbox, or would even think of using one. This is cultural..they would be horrified at the thought. You hire someone to do manual labor..always. Picture Queen Victoria fixing a toilet and you have an idea. An ultra-rich SD who dines at Maxim's using a wrench and lathe? Cant'be.

--Pegasus2PH 02:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Loss of papers - I think it is the combination of his own depression/destruction and the fact that he had no direct descendents or even a company that would attempt to preserve such things. The rolling of sleeves -- This is pretty consistently reported in all of the books I've read on SD -- even the Hoffman books which was, in many ways, a less than flattering view of the man.  SD's habit of actually working in his own shop is represented as being a bit odd.  But, as I recall, there are references to cases where he'd come in from the shop, put on a jacket, and head off to Maxim's. But I've not read any primary sources, only secondary ones.  So it could well be a myth.  Perhaps this is very unusual given his background, but all of the "inventor-types" I know of get down-and-dirty with their creations. Blimpguy 14:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-- Suns "Today, while there remains a high regard for Santos-Dumont's accomplishments, and a recognition of the 14-bis flight as a important event in early aviation, the honor of first effective heavier-than-air flight is most commonly assigned the Wright brothers for their flight of 38.9km (24.2mi) on Oct. 5 1905 with their Flyer III in the US."

Whell, is public that is only commonly assigned to the Wright Brothers in eua, and eua closely related countries. So this is strange fact to expose.

The first public flight by the Wright brothers was 8 Aug 1908.

Spliting in two articles
I notice that the Disputed Title section is good. But, is it just a Dumond's problem? It's Wright's problem, too. Why keep it in THIS article? Shouldn't we move it to a new article? Something like "Father of Aviation".

What do you think? User:Sanmartin


 * It's in progress. See First flying machine.  A D Monroe III 21:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * While a separate article is a fine idea, some of the issue is specific SD. In particular, SD's obscurity today, outside of Brazil, after being so wildly famous in his own day is an interesting historic anomoly.  I would hope that the specifics of SD's accomplishments and the fame that they obtained at the time aren't deleted/lost/obscured when the new, more general article is created. Blimpguy 22:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. First flying machine has no specifics, yet.  Listing the claims by name is flame bait.  I first want to establish the ground rules (mostly, that there is no single answer).  The Disputed title section can be added at the end, along with similar sections from Sir George Cayley, Clement Ader, Otto Lilienthal, Wright brothers, Louis Blériot and everyone else's local heroes.  Remember, this isn't just between SD and the Wrights.


 * First, though, we have to disentangle the articles First flying machine (1stFM) and Early flying machines (EFM). I was going to replace EFM completely, but I'm now thinking I'll keep the table at the end as a separate article in EFM.  That will leave the end of 1stFM open for sections as suggested.  --A D Monroe III 14:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Greetings 200.207.56.50 -- While you have certainly followed the Wikipedia "advice to be bold in editing", your rewrite of the Disupted Title section with a one-side, completely pro-Santos view does not adhere to the goal of "neutral point of view." This section has been carefully crafted as a combined work of many authors, both North and South American. It would be more appropriate to put your opinion piece in a separate Wikipedia article with a link from the main Santo-Dumont page. Blimpguy 18:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another invention
Here in Brazil, we hear that Dummont invented the wristwatch. --Mateusc 22:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe this is already discussed in the article. Blimpguy 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not true for every Brazilian. Being a Brazilian myself, I've never learnt this. augustojd 19:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dumont doesn´t invented the wristwatch. However, i think that Patek Philippe also didn´t. Breguet made a small wristwatch for the Quenn of Naples, in 1810. I also think that the first commercialy avaiable wristwatches are ordered to Girard Perregaux by Prussian Army, at late 19 century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.74.43 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

More stuff on Dumont
Hi. I thought that some stuff I know about him might come in handy for the article. But I'd like to submit it for appreciation here first. Most of it comes from my memory, so some research may be necessary in order to back it up with sources if required. I can vouch for the accuracy of what I'm about to report though, as I've "collected" the information in such places as respected documentaries from Brazilian official sources, over the years:


 * During his lifetime, Dumont was asked repeatedly to comment (or settle) the "dispute" over the "fatherhood" of the airplane with the Wright Brothers. He refused to discredit publicly the work of Orville and Wilbur, for whom I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration, to quote Dumont &mdash; this comes from a guy who once added almost a week (early 20th century...) to a trip he took to Canada just so he could meet Thomas Edison in New York.


 * I've heard that Dumont is the inventor of the sliding system for doors and windows. He's supposed to have had the idea while watching trains go by in Paris.


 * When he was back in Brazil, Dumont invented the world's first shower – a contraption that allowed him to "take a bath standing up" (this is open for public visitation in the Santos Dumont museum, in Petrópolis, which used to be his house). Since it was too cold during the wintertime, Dumont decided to heat the water before loading it in his shower, thus he also took the world's first hot shower.


 * Finally, and this is perhaps the most interesting piece of information I have to offer (and it is duely documented), Dumont single-handedly coined a word (a noun) that is in common use today: during a speech in Paris a couple of years after the flight of the 14 Bis, he invented the word "Airport". It was his idea.

Does that interest for the article? Regards, Redux 00:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * They all sound interesting, but I've never heard any of them before. So I'd be a bit cautious about adding any of them unless you've got a reliable reference.  e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary with ragard to the word "airport". Alternatively, you could add them with a hedge such as "There are some reports that . . ." Blimpguy 18:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have here a source in English (also reproduced here) that confirms his authorship of the word "Airport" (even quoting his words - translated into English - and the exact occasion when he spoke them).  It also provides evidence that Dumont, as it turns out, did comment on the controversy with the Wright brothers claim.  Granted, the work starts off with a somewhat "anti-Wright brothers" tone, but still looks reliable to me.  As for the shower thing, I must correct myself.  My source at the Brazilian Ministry of Education reveals that Dumont did invent a heated shower (alcohol powered).  It wasn't clear whether or not it was the very first in the world, although it is known that Dumont ignored any previous design, and constructed his prototype from his original idea.  But apparently, he did not invent the first shower.  About the sliding doors and windows, I haven't been able to find any sources other than my memory to vouch for it so far.  Will keep looking.  Regards, Redux 23:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

First Public Flight & Disputed title
The first public flight by the Wright brothers was 8 Aug 1908. In 1910, a monument was built on Bagatelle with the inscriptions: HERE, NOVEMBER 12 TH, 1906, UNDER CONTROL OF AERO-CLUB FRANCE, SANTOS DUMONT ESTABLISEH THE FIRST AVATION RECORD OF THE WORLD DURATION: 21 SECS 1/5 DISTANCE 220 METERS. Therefore, before Vargas. No idea only of Vargas. --84.189.142.208 19:25, 31. Jan. 2006 (UTC)
 * The Wright brothers had flown before at least 40 people in 1905 including David Beard, of the Dayton Journal, according to the same website. And others in other years before the listed flight. The flight on that date lasted 59 1/2 min and covered 24.5 miles compared to Dumont 220 m a year later.
 * Dave Beard was a farmer who lived adjacent to Huffman Prairie and saw many flights. Luther Beard worked for the newspaper, and from what I've read, he never saw any flights, although he sometimes chatted with the Wright brothers on the trolley from town to Huffman Prairie. The Oct. 5, 1905 flight was 39 minutes, not 59.   DonFB 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what "first public flight" is supposed to mean. Even early that year, 1908, according to the same source, the Wrights had flown before:
 * "by D. Bruce Salley, freelance reporter; Byron R. Newton of the New York Herald; and William Hoster of New York American...P. H. McGowan of the London Daily Mail, Arthur Ruhl, writer, and James H. Hare, photographer for Collier's Weekly, who witnessed flights of May 13 and May 14 and made a photograph from a distance which was published in Collier's, May 30, the first picture ever published of an airplane in flight."

Hardly a secret flight program as has been alleged. Rmhermen 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

":I have no idea what "first public flight" is supposed to mean. Even early that year, 1908, according to the same source, the Wrights had flown before:
 * "by D. Bruce Salley, freelance reporter; Byron R. Newton of the New York Herald; and William Hoster of New York American...P. H. McGowan of the London Daily Mail, Arthur Ruhl, writer, and James H. Hare, photographer for Collier's Weekly, who witnessed flights of May 13 and May 14 and made a photograph from a distance which was published in Collier's, May 30, the first picture ever published of an airplane in flight."

Hardly a secret flight program as has been alleged."

"ILLUSTRATION [June 6th, 1908] on the alleged flight by the Wright Brothers:

"Ce document est une épeuvre sur papier fotographique. Mais est-ce une photographie? L'aspect est bien équivoque et on y remarque tous le caractères d'un truc."

["This document is an illustration on photographic paper. But is it a photograph? There is something fishy! Someone has noted the possibility of a trick"]"  To photograph in the New York Herald 14. Mai 1908.

ballooning in the opening paragraph
Rmhermen - Let's leave your wording narrowing the "first public flight" claim for now. I need to do some more reading on the Wright's 1904-5 flights vis-a-vis the press/public before commenting further. However, on the matter SD's early ballooning, which you also reverted: I believe SD built only one balloon, namely Brésil see List of Santos-Dumont aircraft. Although, he did fly a few owned by other folks. As such, I think it is a fair bit of overstatement to say that during his early ballooning he designed, built, and flew a variety of balloons Further, no matter how many balloons he may have flown, his balloon flights were of little historic importance other than what it led to later. So it seems distracting to talk about ballooning in an opening summary. One might as well mention his love of motor cars or snazzy suits. Do you have some other information that I might have missed? Regards, Blimpguy 23:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't intend to change the balloon part back. I have no idea about his balloons. And I should say as above that my edit summary confused two flights. Their 1905 flights were in front of groups of locals including a local newspaper. It was some of their 1908, after Dumont that were in front of national and international press, but still before the date quoted elsewhere on this talk page. Rmhermen 23:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * the First flying machine article contains the line: "who may be unaware of a 1.300 foot Wright Brothers flight without a catapult near Dayton in August 1904, to be the first to take off, fly, and land without the use of catapults, high winds, or other external assistance". I can confirm the no catapults which they didn't use until late August 1904 - don't know about the wind conditions though. Rmhermen 23:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that this is not correct as you could consider the use of rails, etc. as external assistance. Rmhermen 23:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, now I'm confused. Do you think the narrower claim "first public flight in Europe" is appropriate or the broader claim "first public flight"? Blimpguy 00:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that "first flight in Europe" and "first to take off, fly, and land without the use of catapults, high winds, or other external assistance" are appropriate. The article First flying machines disagrees with the second statement. Rmhermen 01:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't quibble. Frankly, I'm pretty burned out on the whole "first airplane" business.  SD was clearly the first person to make routine, controlled flights - albeit in an airship.  I find it truly sad that such a historic accomplishment has been completely overshadowed by the subsequent fuss about airplanes.  The only (sort of) amusing part of the whole sad tale is that US folks (such as myself) grow up not even knowing that a controversy exists. Regards, Blimpguy 03:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Rmherman, no pilot I know would ever consider rails to be "external assistance". If so, we'd all be in danger from low flying locomotives. 216.66.104.110 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

more on NPOV vis-a-vis Wrights
I just did a re-write on pieces of this article, but then noticed the "read the talk pages" note. Could somebody clue this newbie in on how exactly this editing process works? In a nutshell, I feel this article should be brought more into line with what is actually objectively known. The piece needs to:

(a) carefully delineate what is really known about witness accounts of Wright vs. Santos-Dumont flights (who witnessed Wright flights?), rather than bluntly declare the Santos-Dumont flights as the first "public" flights without qualification (I'd use "officially observed", with an explanation of that officiating body; the word "public" in this context is biased and, under many reasonable definitions of that term, false)

(b) provide a realistic and documented representation of how the history of heavier-than-air flight is actually portrayed internationally. The article now seems to imply it's essentially America vs. Brazil, when in fact the Brazilians are far more isolated on this issue than the passage now suggests. This reminds me of an "Evolution on one hand and Creationism on the other" kind of dichotomy, that paints a veneer of balance but actually masks a lopsided body of evidence. For example, the implication that the French are of one mind with the Brazilians on this question is essentially wrong.

(c) the passage dealing with Wrights vs. Santos-Dumont needs to provide a more balanced discussion of what was needed to get the Wright planes airborne. But far more critically, that passage needs to carefully explore the issue of whether assisted take-offs actually have any bearing on the legitimacy of the Wright brothers' claims of first achieving controlled and sustained heavier-than-air flight. This portion of the passage absolutely requires a careful discussion of this central issue; as it stands, the passage carefully side-steps it. A delineation of the criteria for first flight is central to the article's opening claim that because Santos-Dumont did not use assisted take-offs, he's regarding by some as "the 'Father of Aviation' as well as the inventor of the airplane". In the discussion of the criteria for first flight, multiple definitions might be entertained, but the passage needs to point out that if one defines true heavier-than-air flight as requiring unassisted take-offs, catapult-assisted jet fighters taking off from modern aircraft carriers would not qualify. If on the other hand, assisted take-offs are consistent with achieving true controlled heavier-than-air flight, provided the craft becomes self-powered and flight is sustained, then claims that Santos-Dumont is the "'Father of Aviation" as well as the inventor of the airplane" rest solely on denying witness and photographic accounts of the Wright flights. That's a step toward clarifying the debate.  Because it side-steps the central issue of what flight is, the first paragraph in the article is in dire need of qualification, points that can be fleshed out later in the Wright vs. Santos-Dumont section.  Stating "some consider him" rather than "all" is not sufficient.  As worded, it's plain advocacy.

Anyway, somebody clue me in on how this system works. I don't want to preemptively edit if there's a discussion going on. However, I think this passage needs some tweaking. Vjockin 10:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for your interest and time. Careful explorations of the sort you propose are most welcome and well within the admonition to "Be Bold In Editing".  However, this article has suffered from repeated episodes of partisans (both US and Brazilians) coming to the page and wiping out the opposing view. The note at the top of the controversies section is aimed mostly at trying to avoid such repeated thrashings.  Now, to your specific points: a) I agree that "officially observed" is an important matter but it does not quite capture the entire point.  The Wrights were very deliberate about playing with their cards close to their chest. Protection of intellectual property was a very big deal for them. SD on the other hand was very deliberate about having his flights in full view for anyone interested (He did make a few "private" experiments such as when he hung his basket between two trees early one morning to test the vibration of the motor.) SD was trying to start a "movement" not just create a contraption.  Also,much of SD's fame arose from the fact that there were reporters and crowds of spectators as well as official observers.  Thus the use of the word "public". b) I share your intuition, but I have no idea how to find evidence to support anything except "one the one hand ... on the other hand."  If you've got hard evidence to the contrary, please be sure to include the citation when you make the change. c) Sure, try a rewrite that you think more fair.  I just would be cautious to make sure you retain the thread as to why some folks think he's the "Father of Aviation".  By the way, be advised that the popular US PBS program NOVA is running a story on SD this evening and that the page will no doubt be thrashed mercilessly over the next 24 hours.  Thoughtful edits such as you propose may well bet lost in the shuffle. Blimpguy 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll stand back for a while and see what happens, and I'll definitely check out Nova's treatment of SD. My comments on the word "public" are based on the presence of individuals other than the Wrights at their flights, which I don't believe is in dispute. Wright supporters therefore use the term "public" for several of the 1903-05 flights. However, no one disputes that there were fewer observers than SD had, and that the Wright flights were not verified by an officiating body until after the SD flights. So "first officially observed" is something everyone can agree on, a good goal for an article like this. But I'll lurk for a while and consider some modest augmentations down the road. Vjockin 20:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Error in page
Hi,

Just read this page (out of curiosity to see how the controversy was treated here) and actually liked what I found (I'm Brazilian). It does seem that an effort is being made to keep the page neutral to the several sides, which I think is good. But, there is an error in the page on the wristwatch invention section. The following phrase:

"Santos-Dumont never took off again without his personal Cartier wristwatch, and he used it to check his personal record for a 220 m (722 ft) flight, achieved in twenty-one seconds, on November 12, 1907"

is wrong. The personal record flight actually was on November 12, 1906. Also, you might want to know that there is a book, written by Santos Dumont himself, called "O que eu vi, o que nós veremos" or "What I saw and what we will see" that is a sort of autobiography coupled with predictions for the future of the airplane. What I find interesting is that in this book, written in 1918, he already mentions the controversy with the Wright Bros. about who was the first to flight (he mentions that the controversy was among the Wright Bros. X All Europeans pioneers as opposed to himself alone), or who was more important for the development of the plane. Many interesting things in this book, where we learn for example, that he received a medal from the president of the US for being the first to flight on a heavier than air machine (I forgot who was the president at the time). The book is online for reading, but in portuguese though. Here:

http://www.cabangu.com.br/pai_da_aviacao/10-oqueeuvi/pg10.htm

Nelbr 09:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm glad to hear that you see the article as following  the notion of NPOV. If you see errors, please feel free to follow the Wikipedia philosophy and be bold in editing.  I've gone ahead and fixed the date and added a link to the 1918 book.  I do not read portuguese, but I would be very interested to add more details about the medal presented to him by the US president (probably Theodore Roosevelt.) So if you or somebody else can skim the book to find them, that would be most appreciated. Regards, Blimpguy 16:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I took the opportunity to reread the book, and found out that it was the Brazilian president who actually gave Santos Dumont a medal for his experiences with dirigibles, not with airplanes. I am sorry for the confusion, as what I said above was not correct. The good news is that the text of the book (on public domain) is available on the Internet, and can be translated by babelfish (or another automatic translator) with ease http://www.biblio.com.br/Templates/santosdumont/oqueeuvi.htm . Very interesting, as he claims his views of the Wright Bros. controversy, as well as he makes some predictions on the future of the airplane. Also interesting to see how famous he was and how the (French) newspapers of the time actually believed he was the first man to fly. A worthy read by anyone interested in the first days of aviation, either pro-Santos or not.Nelbr 20:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

more on conflicting evidence vis-a-vis Wrights
--- The New York Times of December 17, 1951 published the declaration of Alpheus Drinkwater, the telegrapher who sent the message ushering the Wrights’ flights of December 17, 1903, in which he told that on that day – December 17, 1903 – the Wright brothers only “glided”, and their first real flight came on May 6, 1908--- edited by a faithful brazilian

IN DECEMBER 17, 2003, AN ATTEMPT TO RE-ENACT THE ORIGINAL WRIGHT BROTHERS FLIGHT 100 YEARS LATER FLOPPED WHEN A REPLICA CRAFT COULDN’T GET OFF THE GROUND. THE CHEERS QUICKLY TURNED TO GROANS WHEN, AFTER THE PLANE APPEARED ABOUT TO LIFT OFF, IT FELL BACK AND SPUTTERED TO A STOP IN A MUDDY PUDDLE AT THE END OF THE TRACK.---edited by a faithful brazillian
 * Faithful brazillian -- Yes, there are differing reports about the first flight of the Wrights and some of the recreated Wright aircraft failed to fly. However, there are facts on the other side of the argument as well.  The best place for these detailed discussions is the article on first flying machine.  Replaying this disagreement, except in very short form, on every article related to early flight uses up a lot of space and energy.  Regards, Blimpguy 12:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

--- blimpguy i dont think at all that the first flying machine article does any justice at all to santos dumont/ im going to post some stuff there---faithful brazilian

Why Santos-Dumont 1906 flights were important
The flights were highly public and vigorously publicized and therefore accelerated European, and particularly French, efforts to build heavier than air flying machines. The flights thus helped overcome longstanding doubts about the feasibility of airplanes, particularly at a time when the already successful flights of the Wright Brothers were still open to question. For that reason alone, this article correctly says, "Nonetheless, even in these nations there remains a high regard for Santos-Dumont's accomplishments, and a recognition of the 14-bis flight as an important event in early aviation." In this article and some others on the flying machine subject, editors point out that efforts to fly a replica of the Wright Brothers airplane have often been unsuccessful, although a few efforts have succeeded (see especially the photograph at the top of the page: ( http://wright-brothers.org/ ). Interestingly, I have never seen any discussion of efforts to build and fly a replica of the 14-bis. Perhaps that has been done, but if not, it is no surprise. As a contribution to aeronautical science, the 14-bis was of virtually no importance and elicits little interest as such. Even Santos-Dumont did not try to develop the design. On the other hand, when the Wright Brothers came to Europe and flew, they became instantly famous, even though several Europeans besides Santos-Dumont were already flying (Delagrange, Farman, Bleriot). Why did the Wrights become so acclaimed? The reason is clear. It is because they already had been flying for about two years in a machine which, at the end of that period in 1905, was completely under the control of the pilot, unlike anything in Europe until late 1908 or early 1909. The fact that the Wrights used rails, or catapults, or stiff headwinds is of zero significance in measuring their success as inventors of a powered, fully controllable airplane, which is a description that does not fit the 14-bis. Santos-Dumont, brave, pioneering and rich, did win the public relations competition, at first. He had no need to conceal his ideas or his methods, since he was already rich, unlike the middle-class Wright Brothers, who were depending on marketing their airplane to make a living. The endless deprecation of the Wright Brothers' methods of take-off simply reveals a willful and jealous lack of understanding of their hard and life-threatening work inventing a controllable airplane and learning to fly it, as demonstrated in Europe and Virginia in 1908. I have seen comments in these articles saying a flying machine that takes off into the wind and lands lower than its starting point is not really a true airplane. By that standard, a 747 that takes off into the wind (as is the custom) in Denver, elevation one mile, and lands in Los Angeles, elevation a few feet above sea level, is not really an airplane. Or one may say that a seaplane uses "external assistance" because it takes off from water. Such illogical and nonsensical ideas hold as much validity as the idea that the Wright Brothers did not really invent the controllable airplane and make the first flight because they did not use wheels or because they sometimes, but not always, used a catapult. To review: the Santos-Dumont flights of 1906 were important because they publicly demonstrated the feasibility of flight, not because they hold any significance as an aeronautical breakthrough--which had already been achieved by the Wright Brothers with their 1902 glider and successful powered flights in each of the following three years. 4.227.254.254 16:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC) -- DonFB


 * You are missing several points. No one says that the contributions of the Wright Brothers were not important, or that they airplane was not capable of flying, or that they did not contribute to improving flight control of airplanes. What many people say is that, at the time the Wright Brothers were doing experiences with sailplanes, it was already known that sailplanes could be manoeuvered, as Otto Lilliental's had proven several years before. For many people, including the members of Aéroclub the France who had proposed a prize for "The first airplane to take-off, fly and land by its own means", the issue would be who was going to be the first to reach the goal of building a "heavier than air machine" that could take off and fly by its own means, without external aid. That was the goal Santos Dumont and several others tried to solve at first with his 14-Bis, which is quite different from the goal of building a manoeuverable motorized sailplane (ok, airplane that could not take off by itself) like the Wright Brothers were doing. But Santos Dumont was the first to achieve it, several years before the Wright Brothers did it (the take off I mean, not the flying). Nelbr 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You make a very misleading statement by saying "it was already known that sailplanes could be manoeuvered, as Otto Lilliental's had proven..." Remember that Lilienthal was killed because his control was not adequate. It is very incorrect to say, as you seem to, that Lilienthal's weight-shifting method was nearly the same as the Wright Brothers' invention of three-axis control (pitch, roll, yaw) by manipulating aero-surfaces of the airplane. Your statement inaccurately and unfairly implies that control was not very important or difficult to learn, or that Dumont and others had already achieved control, which they had not. When Dumont flew the 14-bis, he had almost no control, and he certainly could not make a smooth turn, or fly a circle, or fly a figure-eight like the Wright Brothers had already been doing in some flights that covered as much as 24 miles. I also disagree with your statement that the Wright Brothers were "improving flight control of airplanes" Their work was more than "improvement"; it was invention of something completely new. Your statement is another example of the thinking by Dumont supporters who minimize or trivialize the Wright Brothers' invention of effective aircraft control--which is what makes real flying possible. Such thinking tries to severely reduce the importance of the Wrights' work, simply because of their method of takeoff. Dumont supporters emphasize the Wright Flyer's lack of wheels and use of a rail and catapult, and consistently fail to give the Brothers credit for spending five years to invent practical, sustainable flight. The takeoff devices are insignificant, compared to the Wright Brothers' research and three years of gliding to discover the fundamental principles of control, and two more years of powered flying to master flight control. The Wright Brothers used those devices so they could make easy takeoffs and do what they really wanted to do: Learn to fly with true control, which no else had ever succeeded in doing, including Dumont and many others. If the Wrights had access to a nice, smooth, large field like Dumont did, they might have used wheels. Perhaps you do not know that the Wright Brothers took off on the rail with no catapult dozens of times with very little or no wind in Ohio, even though they didn't have a nice field where they could use wheels like Dumont. Supporters of Dumont consistently and unfairly ignore the true achievement of the Wright Brothers, and focus only on takeoff. Takeoff is not important without control, and it is not possible to say Dumont had control with the 14-bis that would enable him to make true flights like the Wright Brothers had already been doing for two years. 4.228.111.189 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC) --DonFB


 * Ok, several things. I do understand and agree that the Wright Bros were not concerned about the take off issue. I find it only natural, as their work progressed from sailplanes to airplanes, and it seems obvious that their main concern when adding the engine to a sailplane was to extend its flying capabilities, since as we all know, sailplanes had severely limited. I did not try to imply that Wright Brothers contributions to the manoeuverability of the airplane were not important. I know they were the first to develop wing warping (still when they were using sailplanes) and that they were probably the first who understood the use of banking for turning, at least the first who demonstrated it in practice. I do not try to reduce the importance of what the Wright Bros. did, as I do acknowledge that they were the first to fly on an airplane. My only point, and I think that it is an important one, is that they were not the first to develop an airplane capable of taking off on its own. Doesn't make what they did achieve less important at all. It is not about one or the other, it is more about 2 of several outstanding contributors to the final achievement of building airplanes. By the way, did you know that Santos Dumont was the first to use ailerons in an airplane (which is today's standard for causing airplanes to bank) ? Only thing is that he did it in the 14-bis in 1906 with the objective of avoiding banking because he wanted to fly on a straight line. Just shows how different the thinking and the priorities were at that time. Because he was standing on the "cockpit", and he had no pedals, he tied the ailerons to his shoulders, so that by turning his body he tried to mantain the wings levelled in the air. Nelbr 21:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Issue of fraud
In the "Disputed Title" section of the article, in the paragraph beginning with the words, "In some other countries," I am not sure what the following phrase is supposed to mean: "Many aviation historians see the technological and physical basis of the Wrights' flight as reasonably valid...." Does it mean: "there is no real proof the Wrights flew an airplane in 1903 (or some other year), but the design of their machine seems to support the idea that it could fly"? I am going to assume that is what the phrase means and since incontrovertible evidence of their flight(s) exists, I am going to remove the phrase, if I see no objection here in the near future. Turning to the rest of the sentence and the one following it: "...making an accusation of fraud increasingly difficult to justify. However the evidence is not completely tight." Unless I soon see persuasive evidence in this discussion that could conceivably support a claim of fraud, I am going to rewrite the passage as follows: "By the time of Santos Dumont's flight years later, the Wrights had made a number of flights with witnesses, as well as taking dozens of their own photographs of their machines in flight (available for viewing online at the U.S. Library of Congress), disproving accusations of fraud against them. Supporters of Santos-Dumont argue that the Wrights' use of a launching rail instead of wheels and frequent use of a catapult call into question the definition of their flying machine as a true airplane, thus pointing to the ambiguity in defining the first flight. 4.227.254.254 18:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)   --DonFB

Takeoff conditions
It is speculative, if not POV to say: "As such, none of the Wrights' early craft were able to take off under their own power in calm wind from an ordinary ground surface as was achieved by the flights of the 14-bis." It is true that Wright airplanes did not take off on wheels in complete calm without a catapult until 1910. However, this does not mean they were not able to, as the above quoted sentence asserts. The Wrights simply did not try to meet those conditions, having no need to do so. It is not as if they found some huge smooth open space, put on wheels and tried and failed to take off. I intend to rewrite this sentence as follows: "As such, none of the Wrights' early craft took off under their own power in calm wind from an ordinary ground surface as was achieved by the flights of the 14-bis." 4.227.254.0 22:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)  --DonFB
 * DonFB - I agree with your point that the sentence you site is arguably POV, so if you'd like to change it to "As such, none of the Wrights' early craft took off under their own power..." that's OK by me. That said, I've reverted your stuff about 747's and "decades later" because it's pretty over the top in an article that strives very carefully to be non-inflamatory.  Also, since this particular paragraph is stating the pro-Santos case, and you conceed the fact of its main point (namely that the Wrights did not take off on wheels, etc) then just let the point stand. The reader can decide if it is a valid point. You don't need to instruct the reader that the pro-Santos definition is bogus. That's inherently POV.  As for the other suggestions that you've mentioned elsewhere on the discussion page, thank you for doing so and they all sound fine to me.    Regards, Blimpguy 00:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But I must disagree here. Actually, from everything I have seen and read, the Wright Bros plane was not capable of flying without head winds, at least before late in the decade. There are several very well documented dates where the Wright Brothers were unable to fly because of lack of wind, including a very specific date in 1904 where the press had been invited to see the flights that never happened. You can also check here to start ( http://www.centennialofflight.gov/chrono/log/1904HuffmanPrairie.htm ). In fact, the reasons for adding the catapult are explained (in the same page) by the following phrase: "Catapult starting device first used on this date to aid in takeoff on their limited flying field and to make them more independent of weather conditions. Flight witnessed by Katharine Wright and Melba Silliman." Nelbr 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple of points in response. The flight attempt of May 23, 1904 in front of reporters was the Wrights' first flight attempt after Kitty Hawk. Engine problems prevented a flight that day. A few days later, they made a very short flight with a few reporters watching. You say their airplane "was not capable of flying without headwinds". How then would you explain a circular flight on September 20, 1904 by Wilbur Wright? A circle denotes upwind, crosswind and downwind. Or, using your argument, how would explain a five-minute flight of four circles on November 9, 1904 by Wilbur? The amazing thing to me about Santos supporters is that they seem to think flying in a dead calm is more important than being able to fly under control in the wind, or a breeze. One of the biggest obstacles--and dangers--to flying experiments and controlled flight had always been the problem of the wind. The Wright Brothers achieved breakthrough success against that problem, and yet Santos' supporters talk as if flying in the calm is the most important thing in aviation. Wright engines were underpowered, so the brothers had to lay down a very long rail on the rough field for a long unassisted (no catapult) takeoff, which they achieved dozens of times. But handling and aligning a jointed rail hundreds of feet long on a small flying field was extremely inconvenient, so they used a catapult and a much shorter rail. The result: they learned to fly a lot sooner than they would have otherwise. 4.227.252.185 07:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC) --DonFB
 * I think Nelbr was careless with his wording. He wrote "fly" when it is clear to me that he should have written "launch".  (I am assuming that Nelbr is male.) If so, this disagreement disappears.Blimpguy 11:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant take off, or start the flight. Of course I know that once in the air, they were able to fly on any direction. I do not think it is more important to take off than it is to control the plane. Is just a matter of who did what first. It seems to me that while in France people were thinking about taking off on its own means as a pre requisite to controlled flight later (thus the requirements for both the Archadeon and AéroClub de France prizes, as many others later), the Wright Bros were already thinking of controlled flights, and not very concerned about unassisted take off yet (and I think this was because they progressed from sailplane development). Nelbr 21:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll shortly be making the changes I proposed. In the meantime, another thought to share. The trouble with claims by Santos-Dumont partisans is that they focus exclusively on the issue of takeoff, and ignore completely the breakthrough achievement of aircraft control by the Wright Brothers. Such a view betrays a lamentable ignorance of the true challenge of inventing the airplane. Takeoff is not that big a deal. Even a foolish project like Maxim's managed a "takeoff"--to nowhere. As I mentioned in an earlier note, SD partisans and other anti-Wright (or anti-American) commentators like to point out difficulties with getting a 1903 Wright Flyer replica to fly. They make no mention of any such effort getting a 14-bis replica into the air--again a betrayal of a militantly ignorant anti-Wright perspective on the invention of flight. While I have no interest in rewriting the accolades here for SD's achievements, I intend to vigilantly provide accurate counterbalance to the claims against the Wrights which this article mentions. There are still some problems along those lines in this article, beyond what I have already pointed out and will be changing. For example, the analogy of launching rail to runway is highly apt and relevant and deserves mention. It would be laughable if it weren't such a shame that anti-Wright writers look at a clever engineering solution to the problem of unbuilt airports and lack of other large, open, paved or well-graded spaces and turn it on its head, calling it a deficiency, instead of recognizing it for what it was: a cheap, effective solution that hastened the Wright Brothers' invention of the first practical airplane. Wright critics, whether of the Santos-Dumont stripe or any other, hold the same upside-down view regarding flights in the wind. True, the early Wright engines were underpowered and the flying machine was helped by a breeze. SD and other anti-Wright partisans fail completely to recognize the importance of the Wrights' ability to fly in a breeze, or a real wind, something the 14-bis, Voisin and Bleriot machines had no ability to do until the 1908 Wright Brothers flights showed them how. Aviation exclusively in a dead calm would be a much smaller industry than it has become, a fact that seems to escape Santos-Dumont fans. These thoughts offer a preview of some editorial changes I will be proposing. 4.228.111.4 06:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC) DonFB


 * I find arguments centering on definitions (particular those pertaining to historic events) are generally boring. What's interesting to me, as somebody from the US, is that an argument exists in the first place. Personally, I find it fascinating that I grew up "knowing" that the Wrights "invented the airplane" and was completely unaware that Brazilians (for instance) believe something completely different.  Learning about the difference in belief was as surprising to me as if somebody had told me that there are countries in the world where 2+2 ain't 4.  You are correct in detecting anger and its consequent unreasonableness on the part of some pro-Santos folks.  (The current anti-American political stew doesn't help things either.)  But some of that resentment is also due, I believe, to the fact that while Brazilians (except for the extremists) generally recognize the contributions/innovations of the Wrights, many folks from the US fail to give any credit to SD or to acknowledge any shortcomings in the Wrights' work. As one of the editors of this page I have worked very hard to remove any unreasonable anti-Wright rhetoric.  So yes, if there are lingering bits of unreasonablness, then lets smooth them out.  However that doesn't mean that all mention of them should be removed.  The existance of a controversy is a big deal.  In fact the controversy has overshadowed SD's place in history. Further, I don't think the article is well-served by adding the rails/runway argument.  I think that's an argument about reasonabless.  I think the article should stick to the crux of the matter "The Wrights used rails. SD didn't. Some folks think this is a big deal. Some don't" and leave it at that. I think the more appropriate place for such arguments is in the first flying machine article. Regards. Blimpguy 10:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there is some nonsense above. DonFB claims that being "Pro Santos" is being anti-american ? Seems like a distorted view to me. Also, you are still missing the point there. Taking off by its own means was a big deal at that time, as the engines were very under-powered and no-one had done that before. It was not impossible, and it is evident that someone would eventually do it, but it was Santos Dumont who tried to solve this problem and achieved it first. I do agree that it is not the only problem in flight, and I do agree that it is not the most difficult to solve, and I do agree that the Wright Brothers solved several problems of manoeuvarability, but they did not solve the problem of taking off by its own means first, only later. Nelbr 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think DonFB claims that being "pro Santos" is being anti-American. However some other pro-Santos websites (not this article) are very anti-American.Blimpguy 00:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point, Nelbr, which is: the Wright Flyer was not incapable of taking off by itself; but due to the rough conditions of the flying field, they had to use a rail instead of wheels, and it was much easier to use the catapult than struggle with more than 200 feet of rail. Unassisted takeoff was not a "problem" which the Wrights were failing to solve. They were simply using clever and convenient methods to deal with the limitations of the flying field available to them. I'm glad to know you're not anti-American. 4.227.252.185 07:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC) --DonFB
 * Unfortunately whether or not the Wrights COULD have made unassisted take-offs is speculation. Nothing is ever resolved by speculation.  The article needs to stick to the facts, not guessing about what might have been.Blimpguy 11:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do know that several sites on the Internet (not only Santos supporters) are anti-american, but that is not the focus of the controversy here. In fact, I think these sites actually damage whatever cause they try to defend, because I find their comments stupid. So I just ignore them. Coming back to the controversy, I do think that the Wright Bros. plane was not capable of taking off by itself for several reasons, and I think that this did not bother them at that time. Meanwhile, Santos Dumont was looking for an airplane that he could use to fly around Paris (which he actually started doing with the Demoiselle from 1908) the same way he used his balloons to go for dinner in Maxim's . So, he needed to take off, fly for several kms, land and come back without resorting to external take-off means. Nelbr 21:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To provide accuracy and balance, I have revised the following portion of the Disputed Title section for discussion here: "Supporters of the Wrights' claim point out that the use of ground rails in particular was necessitated by the Wrights' choice of airfields -- the sand at Kitty Hawk and the rough pasture at Huffman prairie -- in contrast to the relatively smooth and firm parkland available to Santos-Dumont -- and was not a reflection of any aerodyamic weakness in design. They also point out that pilot control of the aircraft, particularly in conditions other than a dead calm, is the factor which makes aviation possible--control which the Wrights invented, developed and achieved prior to the 14-bis flights, which were largely uncontrolled and required a nearly complete lack of wind. However, supporters of Santos-Dumont's claim point out that while the Wrights may have been able to create an aircraft capable of takeoff using wheels in calm wind from a flat surface, they in fact did not create such a craft until a few years later." 4.227.253.49 17:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC) --DonFB
 * I think the point that the Wrights' early aircraft had vastly superior control is worth mentioning here. However, I think it makes sense to put it in a different paragraph -- particularly one that is already focused on the "pro-Wright" part of the story rather than interspersing it in a paragraph focusing on the "pro-Santos" part of the story. In particular may I suggest that to the end of the paragraph starting "Supporters of the Wright Flyer claim point out that..." we add "Further, aircraft control, particularly in conditions other than complete calm, was and remains a critical matter in aviation. The Wrights developed control mechanism far superior to and well in advance of all others of their day, including the Santos-Dumont's 14-bis."  I think it would also be useful to describe the control mechanisms, or lack thereof, of 14-bis outside of the "Disputed title" section.  Blimpguy 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the problem of this discussion, is that you are trying to make it seem that the take off issue is minor, and that the Wright Bros did not address it because there was no importance to it. That is just not true. The Wright Bros Flyer was extremely underpowered for its weight, and it could not take off on its own on calm wind conditions. Santos Dumont 14-Bis on the other hand, was built to take off on its own, had wheels, was much, much lighter and had a much stronger engine (50HP for its November flight). Nelbr 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Takeoff was very important to the Wrights; it was the only way they learned to fly before the rest of the world. Plenty of other folks took off (or tried) before the Wrights: Ader, Maxim, Langley, Pearse--and they all crashed. Takeoff is a prerequisite to flight, but it's worthless if you don't know how to control the airplane above the ground. 4.227.252.185 07:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC) --DonFB


 * I meant unassited take off issue, as clearly it was not important for the Wright Bros. but was important for others Nelbr 21:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would revise your suggested changes to my wording as follows: "Further, aircraft control, particularly in conditions other than complete calm, makes aviation possible. The Wrights invented and developed far superior control mechanisms well before all other early aircraft of their day, including Santos-Dumont's 14-bis, which made largely uncontrolled hops and therefore required a nearly complete lack of wind." 4.227.252.77 19:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC) --DonFB
 * First, as to the specific wording -- The argument here revolves largely around the issue of power vs control.  The Wrights had more control; SD more power (hence easier take-off.) As a result, the various partisans tend to take the view that "their" aspect (power or control) is the more important one.  Obviously, both aspects are essential, else no successful HTA flight.  In that light, saying that "control ... makes aviation possible" strikes me as concluding in favor of the Wrights. Also, I think "all other early aircraft of their day" is redundant. I also think both the words "uncontrolled" and "hops" are over the top (I know they appear elsewhere, but they syould be removed.  Just as there is still some pro-Santos POV stuff there is some pro-Wright POV stuff.) SD had some control, albeit far less. "Hop" implies that he couldn't obtain sustained flight which is clearly not correct. As for the amount of wind, I'm pretty sure he flew mid-day so he could handle some wind. Unless you have a specific reference that discusses the amount of wind 14bis could handle, I think it best to be vague as the the amount of wind. So how about: "Further, aircraft control, particularly in conditions other than complete calm, was (and is) essential to successful airplane design. The Wrights developed far superior control mechanisms well before all other comparably early aircraft, including Santos-Dumont's 14-bis and thus could only fly in calm conditions." As for the placement of this text -- The "pro-Santos" section starts with "In some countries, particularly Brazil, ..." and the "pro-Wright" section starts with "In some other countries, particularly the United States, ...". The last paragraph of the "pro-Santos" section does includes the oft-repeated "Yeah, but they coulda done it if they wanted to" argument mostly to point out that any such "coulda" speculation doesn't address the main point which is that they, in fact, didn't.  As such, I see the paragraph, as a whole, consistent with the "pro-Santos" position. So, I think putting the control language anywhere after "In some other countries..." is more appropriate. (I think the refutation of the "Wrights were frauds" charge is appropriate within the "pro-Santos" section because that is a matter of fact rather than viewpoint.) All that said, the "pro-Wright" section is pretty choppy and, in places, repetative and POV laden. It's tricky stuff to edit because of the ease with which one can set off an explosion. I appreciate your interest and patience in helping to improve the article. Regards. Blimpguy 21:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've lost me a little as to where you think the control passage should go. The opening words of the paragraphs you mention seem identical. But on to the more important issue: the phrasing of these ideas. I will state to you that it is possible to fly HTA without a motor at all, but not without control. Take soaring, for example. Regarding the pioneers: Langley had a motor much more powerful than the Wrights. So did Maxim. Neither one flew an airplane, because they had no control and did not even understand what it involved. Just having a powerful motor does not guarantee flight. Not having control guarantees you will not fly. I am not stating a conclusion for or against the WB or SD. I leave it to the reader. I merely state as common sense, backed up by reality, that HTA flight does not exist without control. If somebody is offended by that truth, I can't help it and the chips will have to fall where they may. Reviewing what I said earlier: the SD fans ignore control, and focus only on takeoff. I don't think they even care about control, or such niceties as being able to turn or fly a circle, as long as they can say we took off first with no "external assistance". We, as encyclopedia editors, should not be held hostage to that line of thinking. Our job is to present the whole story, truthfully. Here is revised phrasing that I believe covers the topic appropriately: "Further, the Wrights were the first to develop effective aircraft control, which made practical flight possible even in breezy or windy conditions, which are common, as well as in calm conditions. Their far superior control mechanisms appeared well before all other aircraft, including Santos-Dumont's 14-bis." 4.227.248.98 00:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC) -- DonFB
 * Yes there are unreasonable "pro-Santos" arguments. However there are reasonable "pro-Santos" points as well. I believe our job is to state the reasonable "pro-Santos" positions in the best possible light. (It's a baby/bath water thing.) The same is true of the "pro-Wright" positions. With regard to "what's where", I can understand your confusion. The wording separating the portions is carefully designed to be nearly identical in an attempt to be as neutral as possible. Both the "pro-Santos" and "pro-Wright" portions of text are within "Disputed title" section.  First is the "pro-Santos" case starting with the words "In some countries, particularly Brazil..." then, comes the "pro-Wright" case starting with the words "In some other countries, particularly the United States..."  (The key difference being "Brazil" and "United States".) The "pro-Wright" case continues until the paragraph starting "Much of the controversy with regard to Santos-Dumont vs. the Wrights arose ..." where the article attempts to move beyond the specific arguments of the partisans and look at the larger context. As for the suggested wording, I agree that it makes the point well and fairly. The only nit that I would pick is that "before all other aircraft" shows the all-too-common HTA inclination to ignore LTA.  Such an oversight in an article on a fellow who made incomparable contributions to LTA is unseemly. How about changing "aircraft" to "winged aircraft" or "comparable aircraft" or something else appropriate. If that change is OK with you, I suggest that you add the whole thing somewhere in the "pro-Wright" portion of the section.  If you're still not clear on what goes where, then I'll be happy to add it.Blimpguy 10:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a sentence (enclosed by asterisks for easy finding) to the following passage, in which I also change the original "flat" to "smooth" and the original "many years later" to "a few years later". - "Supporters of the Wrights' claim point out that the use of ground rails in particular was necessitated by the Wrights' choice of airfields -- the sand at Kitty Hawk and the rough pasture at Huffman prairie -- rather than the relatively smooth and firm parkland available to Santos-Dumont and was not a reflection of any aerodynamic weakness in their design. **Accordingly, the catapult was used at Huffman Prairie and required only a short launch rail, thus avoiding the time-consuming drudgery of positioning hundreds of feet of rail needed for a lengthy unassisted takeoff roll.** However, supporters of Santos-Dumont's claim point out that while the Wrights may have been able to create an aircraft capable of a calm wind, smooth surface launch, they in fact did not create such a craft until a few years later." 4.227.248.98 02:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC) --DonFB
 * The changes to "smooth" and "a few years later" are clearly improvements, I've already incorporated them. I see two problems with the suggested added sentence: 1) It is in the "pro-Santos" section (see above) and 2) it is an interesting but irrelevant fact. I agree that the Wrights were very clever in their use of launch alternatives to adapt their system to the available locations.  Frankly, I think their launch mechanisms were briliant. But whether or not it was a well motivated and sensible choice doesn't change any of the facts vis-a-vis this discussion.  The "pro-Santos" point is that they used them. It doesn't matter WHY they used them. It doesn't matter how long or short the rails were. They used them. So, it's a valid point, but a distraction that blurs the focus of that particular paragraph. Blimpguy 10:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your argument against including the catapult sentence is inconsistent with the existing parargraph, which takes the trouble to explain why the WB used the rail. To be consistent with your view, there should not be any explanation for using the rail--simply a statement that it was used. But there is an explanation, and it is appropriate, not "irrelevant," as you claim about the catapult sentence. It is equally appropriate to explain use of the catapult. The parargraph in question is located in the pro-SD section, but begins with the words, "Supporters of the Wrights......" and makes a point in their favor about the rail to rebut comments in the preceding paragraph about "assistance". It is entirely reasonable to also include a sentence in the paragraph about the catapult. The rail and the catapult seem to be the two pillars of the pro-SD case. It is not logical to explain one of those items (the rail) in that paragraph and avoid explaining the other (the catapult). 4.227.253.83 19:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC) --DonFB
 * I still think it distracts more than adds. But go ahead and include it if you feel strongly. Blimpguy 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable. 4.227.252.181 04:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC) --DonFB
 * Likewise. Looking at the numbered list of "pro-Wright" points, I think the new point #3 duplicates point #2. In fact, I think point #2 should now be removed as it also contains the clearly POV "uncontrolled hops" text.  I'm also going to attempt to smooth the transition between the "pro-Wright" list and the subsequent discussion of replicas without altering the content. Blimpguy 17:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get some of the arguments used here. So, the Wright Bros did not have an open field to take off like Santos Dumont did, and that is why they used catapults and rail ? So, can you explain why did they still use these devices when they did their presentations in France ? I think this view is very POV . You see, Santos Dumont did the same. First he took off by its own means, than he added manoeuvarability to his planes, the Demoiselle first flight occurred in November 1907, only 1 year after the 14-Bis first flight. And the Demoiselle, could take off and land on its own, in addition of being a controllable plane, with which Santos Dumont used to visit his friends in the outskirts of Paris on a regular basis. Nelbr 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I think you are correct in pointing out that SD and the Wrights were focused on different aspects of the problem. Clearly different people see each of them as having made the "correct" choice.  The article states one side of the argument and then the other side.  Each is inherently "POV" in its own way. Blimpguy 00:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nelbr, a good question about the Wrights using the rail/catapult in France. Simply, the answer is that was their standard procedure by that time, and that was the design of their airplane (skids, not wheels). They were not trying to prove anything about takeoff. Instead, they were trying to prove they had invented an airplane that was fully and safely controllable in the air, and was capable of carrying a passenger as well. Are you not aware that Wilbur lengthened the rail and took off without the catapult to win a prize in France? Later, in Italy, do you know he took off on skids without the rail or catapult a few times?  The Demoiselle was a beautiful, advanced airplane, but it was not powerful and might not take off if the pilot weighed more than Santos, who was very small. 4.227.252.185 07:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)  --DonFB
 * Exactly!!!! Here we do agree. The Wright Bros. were not worried about proving any unassisted take off capability, while the French were. Thus the requisite for the French prizes, and thus the reason some people like Santos Dumont concentrated in solving this problem first. Now, I do know about the Wright Brothers presentations in France, when they replaced the engine of their Flyer by a much more powerfull engine (Antoniette I think) that allowed them to finally take off unassisted and claim that prize and do these take offs that you mention in Italy. But that was in 1908, 2 years after Santos Dumont had, for the first time, proven that it was possible. Also, your comments about the Demoiselle are not exact, as several hundreds or maybe even thousands Demoiselle planes were built and flown by several people, including in North America, as a construction article was published in an American Magazine (Popular Mechanics I think, but I am not sure). In fact, the article had very positive reviews about the plane at the time it was published, and makes it very hard to know how many home-built planes were done in US alone. Nelbr 21:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never read that they installed a European engine, although I suppose it is possible. Their own engines by 1908 were a lot more powerful than previously. But really, your insistence that Santos was first to prove unassisted takeoff to be possible just just does not stand up to the evidence, unless you think that a wheeled takeoff, instead of a rail (without catapult) makes all the difference. You should be aware the Flyer took off from the rail many times in little or no wind in 1904 before they built the catapult. The Flyer's ability to take off and make controlled flight in the wind as early as 1903 was a revolutionary breakthrough in the quest for powered flight, not a drawback, as Santos supporters seem to believe. DonFB 08:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC) DonFB


 * Actually, I am not aware of any succesfull take-off followed by a succesfull flight in Dayton in 1904 without winds, and would greatly appreciate if you could point me to some worthy reference that proves that. I guess it would give you reason, as I do agree that the existence of the rails does not invalidate the unassisted take-off, as long as it is on a plain surface (not inclined). Others may disagree, as the rail is an external part of the airplane, but for me it would be ok. Modern planes cannot take off without a runaway anyway. But be aware that taking off is not sufficient, it has to be followed by a flight larger than a hop and by a landing without damage to the airplane. Actually, as I know that the Wright Brothers flew about 150 times in 1904 but were only airborne for about 45 minutes in total, and that at least 2 of these flights lasted more than 5 minutes, we are left with an average flight time for the remaining flights of only 12 seconds, and I assume the larger flights were with good wind conditions, so I would be surprised if such a flight really happened. I am surely not aware of any. I know that the Wright Bros. increased the length of the rail hoping to compensate for the lack of winds, but as far as I read, this was not a good solution (and I understood that it did not solve the problem). Thus the next step was to build the catapult, first used in Sep. 7th.

Fraud, revisited
The problem with using the word "essentially" is that it is a qualifier and leaves the door open, however slightly, to the possibility that the Wright Brothers perpetrated fraud of some kind. Today no serious historian or scholar, I believe, would support the assertion of such a possibility. The word, therefore, should not be used by this encyclopedia in that sentence. Perhaps you are trying to communicate the sense of opinion at the time of the events. If so, that must be made explicitly clear. Something like: "with their photographs and witnesses of their Huffman Prairie flights, the Wrights essentially disproved contemporary accusations of fraud, and today any claim of fraud against the Wrights is dismissed by all reputable scholars and historians." I shall be insistent on this point. 4.227.252.191 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC) -- DonFB
 * I certainly agree with you as to the facts. I added "essentatially" because I thought it read a bit better.  Since you think it changes content, the I'm perfectly happy that you removed it. Blimpguy 11:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have some information about Santos Dumont first testing flight?
Does anyone have some information about Santos Dumont first testing flight? Or did he just made one plane and flew to public in October of 1906 without any testing or any prototypes? In what date did Santos Dumont made his first test flight? I think it should have taken some time and some prototypes before Santos Dumont toke his first public flight. So probably Santos Dumont has flown much earlier then the historical 1906 fligth. Could some one please answer this question? --SLGRESSLER 05:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)--


 * Santos-Dumont tested his 14-bis aircraft by suspending it from his dirigible in the summer of 1906 in the manner shown in the photograph. He also suspended it from a horizontal cable and "flew" it while tethered. DonFB 10:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)  --DonFB




 * Since Santos destroyed all of his notes, drawings, and letters before his death we know little of what was done out of the public eye. However, it seems clear that he tended to make all of his flights in public.  He did some testing in private, but I think it is generally believed that he ever made private trials in advance of his public ones. Blimpguy 11:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe that the picture here is not a test of the 14-bis but a picture of the original the Number 14 which was designed to be an aerodynamic-aerostatic hybrid craft. It didn't work. So Santos removed the envelope and recristened the craft 14bis (i.e. 14-again).  That's the source of the unusual name. Also, while I've read that he did indeed suspend the car of his Number 1 from a horizontal line strung between trees, I've never heard of this with regard to 14bis. Blimpguy


 * See this picture for illustration of cable-test of 14-bis. Photo does appear to be retouched. http://www.santos-dumont.net/14bis/20040415-santos-dumont-14-bis/images/7.jpg  The website (in Portuguese) appears to be rabidly anti-Wright, at least in the section labeled "Controversies". DonFB 07:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)  --DonFB

Here is a better looking version of the same picture that does not look retouched. It is part of the Aero Club de France phototeque, therefore I believe it is real: http://www.aeroclub.com/images/santosdumont14bis/photos_web/images/14bis_tracte.jpg Nelbr 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Debate, new section
Here is a sentence from chapter 18 of Fred Howard's Wilbur and Orville: "Of the twenty-four flights made that month [Aug. 1904], seven were 30 seconds or more in duration. On August 22, Wilbur and Orville each made flights of about a quarter of a mile, as far as they could travel safely in a straight line without starting to circle." They did have trouble taking off, because the engine was underpowered. My point is simply that they did take off and make some respectable flights (as good or better than Dumont two years later) before they began using the catapult. Their 1905 engine was more powerful, but the catapult saved so much trouble (setting up a long rail ), they didn't bother to take off without it. By 1908 with their more powerful engine, Wilbur, as you know, took off without the catapult to satisfy the requirements of the French Aero Club.

The real issue in the Wright/Santos-Dumont debate, I believe, is the relative importance of what each accomplished. I am not interested in criticizing Santos. I look only at the relative accomplishments. The invention of controlled powered flight by the Wright Brothers far outweighs the achievement by Santos-Dumont of about ten hops, with very little control, in the 14-bis. Santos fans who claim it was really Santos who invented the airplane because he used wheels (and maybe he invented the wheel, too), or that he solved a problem the Wrights could not overcome, display either ignorance or disregard for the truth, which should not go unanswered or unbalanced in the Encyclopedia or anyplace else that purports to offer knowledge of aviation history. So I'll come full circle: Santos' 14-bis flights were important because they were completely public and stimulated efforts by European pioneers, who wanted to catch up to the Wright Brothers, to build and fly airplanes. In that sense, Santos' flights were a great success. DonFB 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, but where does it say, in this paragraph above, that the flights on August were done without winds ? I know that with sufficient wind, the flyer could take off (as had been done in Kitty Hawk already). A plane that cannot take off without wind has several shortcomings, as the several failures to take off by the Wrights on this year show. This was the problem that the French were trying to solve, and no matter how much you think that it is not as important for the development of aviation, this is what Santos Dumont solved before the Wright Bros.


 * I also think you are unfair when you compare the entire achivements of the Wright Bros over a 5 year span (1903-1908) to the 10 hops of the 14-Bis . It was Santos Dumont first succesfull plane, all right, but only 1 year later he was already flying the Demoiselle, which was at least equivalent in performance capabilities to the Flyer in manoeuvering capability (maybe with less flight autonomy, but again, he just wanted to fly around to visit his friends a few kms away).


 * You know, some of the things you say are actually just your opinion, and maybe no matter how much we debate, we will probably not reach an agreement. To me, they were different people, in different countries, trying to accomplish different things and each one was incredible in its own way . Personally, I have some antipathy for the Wright Brothers approach to the whole thing, with the patenting wars and all the sueing that took place, as well as the rivalry with other aeronauts (and among themselves) and in that sense, I think Santos was a much better man. Which, of course, is completely unrelated to who did what first and the achievements of each one of them. Nelbr 21:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right: we will not agree, and probably should not use up more valuable storage space on Wiki's servers. But I feel compelled to respond anyway. The Wrights solved the takeoff problem to their own satisfaction; there was not some fundamental aeronautical issue they failed to solve. They just didn't have as powerful an engine as the wealthy Santos could afford a couple of years later (when engines were also more advanced). I compare the Wrights to Santos, because that's what Santos fans do in reverse. I don't agree the French were trying to solve the "takeoff problem". They were trying to build a controllable airplane, which the Wrights had already accomplished. As for the patent issue....well, I can understand your feeling. I think the patent issue is one of the big reasons that some people, perhaps especially Santos fans, want to find shortcomings with the Wrights' achievements. There is hostility, as you admit, and it has followed the Wrights for 100 years. My intention is to stand up for what they accomplished, even if people don't like them. DonFB 04:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * DonFB, ok. I think we both made our points.


 * Having said that, my current feeling is that your changes to the article made it unbalanced. Before you edited it, there was a clear separation between Santos supporters claims and Wright Bros supporters claims. The counter claims you included in the Santos supporters part, drives the reader of the article towards a conclusion that Santos arguments are wrong.


 * I do not want to go changing again by myself, so here I think we should ask for someone else, who have read our discussion here, to come back and rewrite this part again, trying to clearly separate the arguments and counter arguments in separate sections, and letting the reader decide, as it was before. BlimpGuy ?
 * In general, I think DonFB's contributions have been very positive. There were several instances of "POV" in the pro-Santos section that has helped to remove.  I think we might look at making a comparable improvment in the pro-Wright section.  That should help keep the article properly balanced.  As to the question of "The counter claims you included in the Santos supporters part" are you referring to the paragraph that starts "Supporters of the Wrights' claim point out that the use of ground rails in particular was a necessitated by the Wrights' choice of airfields..." or elsewhere? Blimpguy 14:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly the paragraph that bothers me. Even if I don't personally like its contents, as I had mentioned before that the Wright Bros. were still using catapults in France (thus the affirmation that they were used because of the type of terrain encountered seems inaccurate), I really think it is misplaced. It would be much better placed in the Wrights Supporters section. As it is, it seems to the reader that the encyclopedia disagress with Santos Supporters affirmations, or at least, that it is trying to contest it.
 * I would also prefer to move down (if not remove entirely) the part about some Santos supporters contesting the veracity of the Wright Bros. achievements (the fraud issue, discussed elsewhere), as I do not think these are seriously backed alegations, and are usually used by people with little knowledge of the Wright Bros. work and the availability of proofs that back them up. If the text stays, in this case, I have no problem in having a counter phrase in the same paragraph, and the one added by DonFB seems perfectly ok. Nelbr 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I support both of these suggestions. My understanding is that the changes would mean completely removing the two successive paragraphs that begin, "Some admirers of Santos-Dumont go further...." and, "However, by the time of Santos Dumont's flights in 1906...." The other  suggestion would mean moving the paragraph that begins, "Supporters of the Wrights' claim point out that the use of ground...." to a position  immediately before the paragraph that begins, "Supporters of the Wright Flyer claim point out that 1) although...."  DonFB 02:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have finally been bold and did the proposed changes. Let me know if anyone disagrees with them. Another paragraph I would like to remove is the one about the russian father of aviation later on this section. It seems to me that it is a little bit misplaced on this particular discussion and would be better on a first flight article. What do you think ?


 * Looks good. There is one "pro-Dumont" sentence I want to remove from the "pro-Wright" section. I meant to suggest this earlier, but overlooked it. The sentence begins, "However, supporters of Santos-Dumont's claim point out that while the Wrights may have been able to create an aircraft capable...." That sentence virtually repeats the last sentence two paragraphs earlier, which begins, "As such, none of the Wrights' early craft...." Either sentence is Ok, but including both is redundant. Also, the pro-Dumont sentence is out of place in the pro-Wright section. DonFB 00:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, if you want, I will be glad to continue the discussion for a final text by email, and later post here a resume of our conclusions. Nelbr 12:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not 100 percent satisfied with the article, but in my view, the most offensive parts have been removed or changed. If you have specific wording changes you want to suggest, my preference is that it be posted here, for further discussion. DonFB 02:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * i just don't understand the controversy over what is more important, flight control or take off. it seems by definition if you have flight control and mastered design for wings that lift/correct angle of attack you have the fundamentals for take off anyways.  simply a matter of a very long runway instead of a catapult would suffice.  whereas if you can take off and don't understand the fundamentals of control, there is no simple solution.  the wrights proved they understood all the aspects necessary for flight/takeoff and full control in the air.  dumond demonstrated he could take off and barely control his invention.  i don't understand how its even controversial except for some nationalistic cultural reasons.

Disputed title -> Controversy vs. Wright Brothers
I've been musing on the whole controversy issue. I think the article could be improved if it were a bit more explicit about what's going on. In particular, I'd start by renaming the "Disputed title" section to "Controversy vs. Wright Brothers". I'd then look to differentiating between two aspects of the controversy 1) the technical issues (which we've covered quite well) and 2) the socio/political fact that many Brazilians, TO THIS DAY, believe that Santos has been shortchanged by history (which is not yet well described.)  The trick of course will be to maintain NPOV on whether or not the Brazilians are right about this claim. But right now the existance of hurt Brazilian national pride isn't well described. Anybody who is just learning about SD (particular somebody from the US who reads the article) should receive fair warning that SD's place in history is a minefield. And, on a different topic, I'd like to be more explict about how SD's work on LTA has been overshadowed by his later work, and the associated controversies, on HTA. My sense is that even if one adopts a completely "pro-Wright" view vis-a-vis heavier-than-air, SD was still the first person to build and fly an effective aircraft (e.g. his airship #9). By "effective aircraft" I mean specifically that he was the first guy who could, with any regularity, get up in the morning and say "Gee, I think I'll fly over here today." and do it. Yeah, it was in a blimp and later technology (specifically HTA) came along to make blimps less important. But, to my thinking, this doesn't diminish his accomplishment any more than the development of advanced HTA diminishes the accomplishments of other early fliers. So, it is this aspect of SD's work, that he was in this respect the "first to fly", that gets obscured by the smoke and heat of the controvery vs. the Wrights. This obscuring happens in general and it is also happens in this article. Blimpguy 14:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You make good points about Santos' LTA accomplishments; I think that is where he's been shortchanged, not HTA. He truly was an LTA pioneer, much more so than in HTA, in my view. Though I would say his achievements with the Demoiselle are worthy of high recognition (especially compared to the 14-bis). I think his fans generalize the LTA oversight to give his HTA work vastly more importance than it is due. If his HTA work were as momentous as his fans claim, I think the world would have given that work--and him--commensurate lasting recognition. There are three interesting parallels that come to mind: bicycle vs. automobile, blimp/dirigible vs airplane, and Santos-Dumont vs. Orville Wright. In the technical arena, the "safety" bicycle (equal size wheels, pneumatic tires, chain drive) exploded upon the world in the 1890s with huge impact. Yet, the invention was almost immediately overhadowed by the automobile, the names of many of whose innovators and tycoons are remembered (Daimler, Ford, eg.) Only a historian could give the name of anyone who was responsible for the bicycle revolution. A similar situation obtains with LTA vs. the airplane (though the name Zeppelin has endured, as has "Hindenburg" in a negative context). After the flashy parts of Orville Wright's and Santos-Dumont's careers, occurring in nearly the same years, they both retired from public view, living the remaining decades of their lives without producing any further aeronautical accomplishments; yet the fame of only one of them endured. I suppose SD adherents will chalk that up to U.S. global influence or something like that. Perhaps there's a bit of truth to that, but I'm inclined to think it has more to do with the relative importance of their accomplishments in the HTA field. I certainly have no objection to someone enhancing the LTA portions of the article, along with some "interpretive" socio-political comments about the SD-Wright controversy. DonFB 03:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting parallels -- particularly the bicycle/automobile one. There is one more aspect to consider mentioning.  In the initial SD vs Wrights bruhaha, my guess is that Santos' supporters may have taken an all-or-nothing approach.  "SD is the man! He did everything first! The Wrights are frauds!" they'd say (Well, in words more appropriate to 1907, but you get the idea.) When Wilbur finally takes off in Paris in 1908 and flies circles around everyone else (literally), then SAD's supporters are discredited and all of SD's accomplishments, LTA and HTA, were largely swept aside. But, this may be too subtle a point for an encyclopedia article.  It also includes a fair bit of extrapolation/guess-work/speculation on my part. I haven't seen this baby/bath-water process documented anywhere. Blimpguy 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My impression is that shrill claims about Santos' supremacy are much more a recent phenomenon than a historical one. I'm not aware of much, if any, "we wuz robbed" sentiment in the early 1900s. I don't think Santos supporters were "discredited" at the time. I think simply that the Wrights' abilities were so vastly superior--and proved they were not lying about their earlier, mostly unseen accomplishments--that they gained the credit and fame they deserved, overshadowing all others. Even though Santos got airborne the year before Farman and Delagrange, his HTA achievements seem to fit properly in their category: powered hops that demonstrated the feasibility of HTA flight. (Farman, of course, also flew a flat circle in Jan. '08.) Likewise, Santos' fame, or lack of it, is roughly on par with theirs. In any reputable work on pioneering aviation, Santos is mentioned, just like the (native) Europeans. Also, because SD did not found a "zeppelin" industry, his truly trailblazing work in that arena became a mere footnote (and Count Zeppelin did achieve equally impressive innovations about the same time). And, as indicated by the bicycle-auto comparison, fame for LTA innovation just could not hold its own against HTA invention. Santos' illness should also be considered. He retired from the field, thus foreclosing his chances of furthering his work, remaining in the public eye, and perhaps cementing a more enduring fame. DonFB 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, I strongly disagree. The "we wuz robbed" sentiment did exist in the early 1900s, even stronger than today. The Wright Brothers did get the fame, almost worldwide, but mostly due to US strong influence in the western world. Arab countries reverence a different inventor, as do Russians. Brazilians and many Latin American countries reverence Santos Dumont, where he is much more famous than the Wright Bros themselves. Being famous, by the way, does not prove anything, as there are several unfamous inventors who predated the official ones in several fields. Here is a very, very interesting excerpt from Santos Dumont 1918 book "O Que Eu Vi, O Que Nós Veremos" (I believe this book is in the public domain by now). It shows several thing which I will comment below:

BEGIN OF EXCERPT

"La Nature said:

"The day of Sep. 13th 1906 will now be historical, because, for the first time, a man has raised in the air by its own means. Santos Dumont, without interrupting work on lighter than air, carries also important studies on the heavier than air, and it is himself, on that memorable day, who has managed to fly in front of a numerous public.

...

It is now an aquired fact that he has raised in space, without a baloon, and this is an important victory for the partisans of heavier than air.

...

It is now (October 23rd) the complete victory of the heavier than air. Santos Dumont has demonstrated in an indisputable way, that it is possible to raise from the ground by its own means, and maintain himself in the air."



A numerous public has seen the first flights made by a man, as such, recognized in worldwide newspapers. Just take a look, even in the US, to confirm this general opinion. I could reproduce all the newspapers and periodics in the world, as they all were, unanymous in glorifying this "memorable minute in the history of aerial navigation."



In the following year, the airplane Farman did some flights which became famous. This was the first aviator that has ever done a 2-way flight. After him, came Blériot, and only 2 years later the Wright Bros. achieved their flights. It is true that they claim that they had flown before, but in hiding. I do not want to remove in anything the merit of the Wright Bros, by whom I have the greatest admiration: But it is undeniable that they, only after ourselves, presented themselves with a plane superior to ours, saying that it was a copy of another one they had built before. After the Wright Bros., came Levavassor with the airplane "Antoniette", superior to everything that then existed. Levavassor had been working for 20 years already in solving the flight problem. He could have said that his plane was a copy of another one built years before. But he didn't. What would Edison, Graham Bell or Marconi say, if after they had shown in public the electric lamp, the telephone and the wireless telegraph, another inventor came out and shown a better version, claiming that it was built before? To whom does humankind owes the HTA aerial navigation? To the experiences done in hiding by the Wright Bros. (they are the first to say that they did everything to hide the results of their experiences) and that were so unknown to the world that everyone claimed my 250 meters as the memorable minute in the history of aviation, or to the Farman, Blériot and myself who did all our experiences in daylight facing scientific comissions?"

END OF EXCERPT


 * As you can see in the Nature article cited by Santos, all the arguments used by pro Santos people were already there, in the article of 1906 (the take off by its own means thing and the publicity of the flight). Also, you hear SD's own opinion on the Wright Bros. controversy.


 * There are several other documental proofs that the controversy existed and that the Wright Bros. were not unanimously accepted in the early 1900s as they are still not today in several countries (though I think that the fraud accusations, at this stage, must be discarded to the evidences that do exist). So, do not assume that the Wright Bros fame in the US and several other western countries are proof that they were actually the first to fly, or the most important in the development of the airplane. Much more likely, the airplane is an evolution of several very diferent inventors and enthusiast, of which the Wright Bros. were very important but not the only one.Nelbr 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the translation of the book excerpt. Most interesting. By the way, it is public domain in the US assuming (reasonably) that it was published here prior to 1923. Also, I agree that the exercise of specifying a single "top-dog" inventor of the airplane is a rather silly undertaking. Regards. Blimpguy 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, here we go again...but I'll try to be brief. The claim that the Wrights gained fame "mostly due to U.S. strong influence," is not accurate, and, I believe, simply indicates anti-U.S. bias. In 1908, after the first public Wright flights, the French were ecstatic with praise for the Brothers, recognizing that they had truly solved the problem of control, which had not yet been achieved by anyone else. That was not "U.S. strong influence"...it was recognition of the truth by the French, who were fierce rivals of the Brothers. I do not assume the Brothers' fame is proof they were first to fly. I don't even claim they were "first to fly". I merely support what is true: they solved the problem of heavier than air flight before anyone else. A simple comparison is revealing: Santos' best flight in the 14-bis was about 720 feet in under 30 seconds, about 10 or 15 feet height, in a straight line. That was his BEST FLIGHT. The Wrights' best flight a year earlier was 25 miles in 39 minutes, circling. The rail and catapult issue are immaterial to their achievement of controlled HTA flight. I agree the airplane is an evolution of different inventors, and the Wrights were not the only ones. But they were the ones who succeeded before anyone else. DonFB 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is just that the Wright Brothers, even though they are known world wide for their contribution, are not reverenced everywhere as the "first to fly" on the same way as in the US. So, it is kind of pointless to claim that their fame is so much bigger than Santos Dumont's fame because their contribution was more important, as I understood from your paragraph. In fact, in several countries, their importance is reduced compared to what is said in the US. The French you cite are a good example, because even though they recognize the importance of the Wright Bros contribution to the airplane, they claim that its inventor was Clément Adler. You also tried to raise the false idea that the Santos controversy is a modern invention, and I think I have shown that it exists since the beginning. I do not see why you link my afirmation of US influence worldwide to "anti US bias" as for me it is a fact in several areas that the US has a very strong influence world wide, both cultural, educational e financial and I do not see it as a bad thing at all. Look, even here on Wikipedia, we are discussing all of this on the US edition (well, English edition) which is by far the most popular on the Internet, and I think probably the best, if we manage to maintain the neutral POV that I have seen people striving so hard to do, specially in articles like this. The US is a major distributor of knowledge, culture, and does have a very strong influence world wide. Except that in this specific issue, it overshadowed the beliefs of a group of people who claim that Santos Dumont achievements were also important for the development of the airplane. Nelbr 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is quite important to point out that the fame of the Wright brothers is due to their achievement, not to U.S. "influence," as claimed elsewhere in this discussion. Ironically, their fame emerged first in Europe, not the U.S., when Wilbur flew publicly in France. I oppose the claim of U.S. "influence" because it inaccurately and unfairly attempts to reduce the significance of the revolutionary accomplishment by the Wright brothers. Other countries certainly have their favorites. Some French do give Ader credit for "first to fly". The more I read, the more I tend to accept that claim. But Ader did not come close to inventing a practical airplane as the Wright brothers achieved; that is why the Wrights are more famous and more important. Same thing with Santos Dumont: his worldwide fame for his pioneering HTA work is much less than the Wrights, because his achievement was much less. I don't think U.S. "influence" has anything to do with their reputations. It is sad reading the excerpt of Santos' book. It sounds quite a bit like "sour grapes," particularly the analogy he attempts to draw with Edison, Bell and others. His complaining question, "To whom does humankind owes [sic] the HTA aerial navigation?" does have an answer, but not the one he wishes. He did important things, but when the Wrights proved they had already done something much more important, it sounds like Santos (and his fans) wanted to deny that reality ("we wuz robbed!") and cast doubts and questions upon it, rather than simply taking pride in what Santos did accomplish. From the evidence I've seen, that attitude clearly persists today. In all of this discussion, I have not seen a single specific fact that legitimately questions the importance of the Wrights' achievement or increases the importance of anyone else's. Even though the Wrights are not equally regarded as airplane inventors in all countries, it seems quite unlikely that anyone will ever be able to offer any evidence other than fervent but unpersuasive national or cultural pride to challenge the uniqueness and importance of their world-changing invention. DonFB 03:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So, to finalize with the facts as we know and I think agree.

The Wright Bros. have contributed a lot to the development of the airplane. They were not the first to fly, but were the first to design, build and fly a fully manoeuverable plane. They were the first to pratically demonstrate the use of banking for turning in airplanes. They were the first to be able to fly an airplane for extended period of time, extending to more than 30 minutes in 1904. Because of these facts, the Wright Bros. are recognized as the "inventors" of the airplane in the US and several other countries. However, in several countries, while all of the above is also recognized, the Wright Bros. are not considered the inventors of the airplane.

Santos Dumont was the first to build an airplane that had wheels, could take off, fly and land without external assistance and under low wind conditions. He also did his flights in public, got the recognition of setting the world's first flying record on an airplane (still recognized to this date). He also was the first one to add ailerons to the wing of an airplane. Because of these facts, Santos Dumont is recognized as the "inventor" of the airplane in Brazil and several other countries. However, in several countries, while all of the above is also recognized, Santos Dumont is not considered the inventor of the airplane.

Now what we don't agree, is that you insist in your claim that the Wright's larger fame is due to their largest accomplishment, and the truth is that the Wright's do not have the largest fame everywhere. Your argument here does not hold. We also do not agree because in my view, while I do recognize the importance of the Wright's to the development of the airplane, I see the airplane invention is a natural consequence of development by several different inventors in several different areas, and therefore I do not recognize a single person (or brothers in this case) as the inventor of the airplane. Furthermore, I recognize that Santos Dumont was the first person in the world that built an airplane that could take off, fly and land by its own means, not resorting to external assistance.

At this stage, I still think that someone neutral should come and resume our points and discussion so that the arguments are clearly explained to someone not involved in it, and try to reduce the size of this page. It is starting to be very big, even though I respect your opinions and do not see this is a "flame war". Just think we will probably never agree Nelbr 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is a way to "archive" a portion of a large page like this, but I don't know how that is done. I do not claim the Wrights are the most famous everywhere. I have clarified that their fame in the many places where it does exist is due to the merit of their achievement, not to U.S. "influence". I understand that many people worked on the problem of HTA flight, and thus could be considered to have "contributed" to the final success (DaVinci, Cayley, Lilienthal, etc). In terms of creating the essentials of a practical airplane, however, I can't give Santos Dumont credit. He did not invent wheels; he merely used them because his location allowed it. His use of ailerons was not a fundamental breakthrough, as the principle was already described in the Wright brothers' May 1906 patent (and upheld in lawsuit decisions) and put to use in their airplanes. Flying in public is not part of the intellectual achievement of solving the HTA challenge; neither is receiving an award for a public display. I recognize that various countries have their favorites, especially Brazil. Unfortunately, I think people who disclaim the Wrights as inventors of the airplane do so for reasons of patriotic pride, rather than logical consideration of the facts. I will accept your wording as the definition of the invention of the airplane by the Wright brothers: "...were the first to design, build and fly a fully manoeuverable plane. They were the first to practically demonstrate the use of banking for turning in airplanes. They were the first to be able to fly an airplane for extended period of time..." It is hard for me to understand how anyone who agrees with those facts does not agree that the Wright brothers invented the airplane. Anyone who disagrees with those facts....is poorly informed. DonFB 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jean Marie le Bris, Jan Wnek, Alexander Mozhaiski, Clemént Ader, Otto Lilienthal, Gustave Whitehead, Richard Pearse, and Jacob Ellehammer... to me all these claims are as good as the Wright Brothers and Santos Dumont... Americans put to much emphasis on the Wrights, and Brazilians put to much emphasise on Dumont. I believe that this mutual exageration of the immportance of Dumont/Wright is detrimental to the truth... I believe no single inventor deserves as much credit as is being claimed by partisans of both sides. ~Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.161.220.181 (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Argentina and France -- and Vargas
201.8.45.204 - The disputed title section has been carefully crafted to have a balanced presentation of the "pro-Santos" and "anti-Santos" views. We list one country as the "primary" country that tends to forward each view. If we were to list Argentina and France on the "pro-Santos" side, then, for balance, we would list two countries on the other side, etc. As this could go on endlessly, it seem best to me to just focus on the two countries at the center of the disagreement.

Also, is there a particular reason to have removed the mention of the Vargas "pro-Santos" push? Do you think it in accurate? Blimpguy 10:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This was FAI. 19:35, 22.11.2006

controversy about private life
The topic of SD's possible homosexuality has once again appeared and disappeared from the article. Clearly a controversy exists. I have attempted to highlight the controversy by creating a section called "Controversy about private life". I considered other titles such as "sexual life" and "romantic life" but I believe the controversy spans both of these. Thus "private" seemed the best choice. Blimpguy 10:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Some vs. many
I take note of the recent edit reversals of "many" to "some" to "many" to "some" at the end of the third paragraph of this article. I think everyone could agree that "some" people do indeed consider Santos the airplane inventor—thus, "some" does not make an exaggerated claim. I believe the burden of proof lies with the claim of "many". An editor who desires to use "many" should look for an authoritative reference to back up the use of that word. Alternatively, there would probably not be any objection if the article said "many" or "most" Brazilians believe he is the inventor. But a broad claim of "many" without reference to nationality is almost certain to raise objections every time, unless a citation exists to justify such wording. DonFB 03:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

100th anniversary
As tomorrow marks the 100th anniversary of 14 bis' first flight, and on november we have the first long flight, I wonder if we could not get this article on the front page of Wikipedia ? Nelbr 22:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Point-Counterpoint
I'd like to eliminate the sentence about Santos flying in public before the Wrights and the Wrights flying a year earlier with witnesses which follows the sentence, "On 12 November 1906, Santos-Dumont succeeded in setting the first world record..." Originally, a Santos partisan (I presume) made the point about Santos preceding the Wrights in public. I added the counterpoint about the Wrights flying half an hour a year earlier. I think the whole sentence (including the part I wrote) injects an argumentative note that is unnecessary and unseemly in the article. It does not add to the reader's knowledge of Santos. The arguments are handled thoroughly later in the Dispute section. The article ought to remain non-argumentative, except for the section specifically devoted to the arguments. Comments? DonFB 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that dropping the entire sentence would be an improvement. Blimpguy 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Reluctant
It is interesting to see that on a page dedicated to Santos Dumont's life and work, the editors and contributors had to spend so much time and effort with the Wright brothers, pleasing a "set the record straight" attitude, that in my opinion merely makes the case for the American POV. Frankly, everything from the second to seventh paragraphs in the controversy section have no place in a Santos Dumont article and could be moved to a separate "first flying machine" topic. It's fair to say there's a controversy, but to debate it to such an extent, for the sake of the Wright brothers achievements is quite misplaced.

Also, I sense there is a misrepresentation in the passage alluding to a propaganda effort by the dictatorial Vargas government and its "special" official acknowledgment of Santos Dumont's feats. It implies that such recognition was enhanced if not produced by that authoritarian regime when that is not clearly the case. It also assumes that mostly for those reasons Brazilians have come to learn of Santos Dumont. I do not understand the hint of propaganda, the emphasis on the Vargas role and the bias it entails. --Juumik 02:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have the same opinion of Juumik, and that's why I'll call an NPOV. Again. 201.19.166.183 01:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Most of this section belongs in First flying machine; that's what that article is for.  --A D Monroe III 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Vargas related text has been removed, which I think is fine.

I'd be delighted with removing most of the "Disputed title" section and leaving just a 1 or 2 line mention that a controversy exists and a pointer to "first flying machines." Anybody object? Blimpguy 16:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Heavier Than Air documentary?
I found it odd that Simone Keith's documentary film "Heavier Than Air" is not mentioned nor cited; if people feel that it adds little factual information to what is already in the article, that's OK (I'm only barely acquainted with the subject, so I wouldn't have a basis for comparison), but it seems worth including in the references/further info list. It's a notable documentary that was aired on PBS stations &mdash; presumably across the US, certainly across North Carolina. An article prior to the film's debut may be found here: "First in Flight? Possibly Not the Wrights, Says NC State Filmmaker" and another here and here's one in Spanish about its showing at the 17th annual North Carolina Latin American Film Festival in central NC. Just FWIW. Lawikitejana 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being an Ugly American, but I don't know how to pronounce Santos-Dumont: is it Santos-Dumon? Is the Brazilian way different from the nominal French? Same thing applies to his airplanes, Demoiselle, a pun on damoiselle? (Yes, http://www.answers.com/topic/demoiselle, it's part of my oral vocabulary - I didn't recognize the spelling.) "On 12 November 1906, Santos-Dumont succeeded in setting the first world record in aviation by flying 220 meters in less than 22 seconds." Back of the envelope calculations leads to 18mph or so. Let's see: $$220 m/s x 1/1 hr/3600 s = 39.600 km/hr = 24.6mph$$

David Levine 15:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ignoring" will never be ignored
Egad....tit for tat continues on the long-suffering last sentence of the intro paragraph. As a major contributor to the Wright brothers article, here's my suggestion: do not include the phrase "ignoring that three years earlier...etc, etc..." Sure, it's true the Wrights flew three years earlier, but it's also true that Brazilians (from my experience on Wikipedia) honor Santos as the airplane inventor/father/first flier. Leave it like that: it is accurate to say that is how he is viewed in Brazil. The "ignoring" phrase, whether intended or not, is pure provocation, and I think I can guarantee it will never survive in this article. If readers are curious about what the Wright brothers did, they can go to that article and decide for themselves who did what and how and when. DonFB 05:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Brazilians do not "ignore" that the Wright brothers done something 3 years before. There is a controversy over what can be considered the first "flight", has can be seen in the first flying machine article.
 * Also, the sentence says Santos-Dumont is considered Father of Aviation - you don't need to be the "first" to receive this title. It is for the most important pioneer, not simply who done something before someone else.
 * The sentence In Brazil he is honored as the "Father of Aviation". ignoring that three years previously, the Wright brothers had already successfully achieved flight in 1903. is, therefore, a non-sequitur, and POV. I'll be bold in removing this.  wildie ·  wilđ di¢e  ·  wilł die  11:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In Brazil the Wright Brothers are not respected and are the subject of cheap jokes and nationalist envy. The are not recognised in Brazil as being the first to fly. In all Brazilian school books Dumont is shown as the first to fly with little or no reference to the Wright Brothers. When there is reference to the Wright Brothers in Brazil, it is to try and show how they "weren't" the first to fly. There should be some comment in that paragraph. Maybe not the word "ignore" but something that would show Brazilian sentiment on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.71.158.25 (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't argue that Brazilians have their own particular view of things. My point is that adding a disputatious phrase in the article's introduction about the "fact" of a Wright flight three years previous will cause an unending edit war. If you read lower in the article, you will see the controversy is already discussed in its own section, which offers a very adequate defense of the Wright achievement. The article's introduction should, in my opinion, simply state what Brazilians believe and let it go at that. In doing so, the introduction would not contradict anything about the Wright brothers; it merely reports the state of opinion in Brazil.   DonFB 15:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Cheap jokes" and "nationalist envy"? Never saw that. Do you have some source for it?
 * The Wright brothers are not universally considered the first to achieve flying. See our First flying machine article.
 * There is no "first flight", there is just an evolution of flying machines, each one more near than the previous. Why cite the Wrights in the lead? All this is already discussed at large in the Controversy vis-a-vis Wright brothers section.
 * Why Dumont's article is the only place in Wikipedia to say they where really the first? Even in Wright brothers the maximum that is said is they are "generally credited" as that, and gives a precise description of their flight achievements - just better than the previous pioneer and worse than the following one.
 * Some people just choose one aviation pioneer and call his flight the first "real" flight. It's just a question of convenient choice of parameters. And Father of Aviation is a title that means more than being the first or not.
 * If the sentence was "In Brazil he is considered the first man to achieve flying", your addition would be valid - if you had a source. But the sentence says he's considered the Father of Aviation. Saying he was not the "first to fly" don't add anything to this, and don't change the title.
 * Yes, the Wright flied before Santos. And some people flied even before they. And some flied after. Santos-Dumont was the first to fly without the use of catapults, high winds, launch rails, or other external assistance. He is, for this and other motives, considered the Father of Aviation by Brazilians. We don't need to say that someone made a worse flight before.  wildie ·  wilđ di¢e  ·  wilł die  16:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

@Wildie...make sure you don't edit posts in this article until you improve your English..this article is for people who have fluent proper English. There is a section on Wiki for people to contribute in SIMPLE ENGLISH. The word "flied" ? Where did you pull that from? Stick to Portuguese or Simple English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.71.158.20 (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Beware with your tone. If you don't answer our arguments and just find some motive to talk against me, someone could consider this an Ad Hominem attack.
 * Also, this is not a article. This is the Talk Page of an article. There is any error in the text I put in the article? (For all contributions to the area, in Brazil he is honored as the "Father of Aviation"'').
 * Yes, I did a small mistake above, but the word "flied" do exist, it just don't have the meaning I wanted. See.
 * I don't found any Wikipedia policy or guideline against less-than-perfect english use in talk pages. I just can't use other languages.
 * But I found some I think are relevant for this discussion. They talk about how we must write from a Neutral Point of View and as to be civil to other users at all times.
 * I see no need for "balance" this way the lead of the article. This is already covered in the footnote, and in the right section - the larger of the article. This article already gives so much weight to the Wright's flight.
 * And, finally, you still don't give us a source for your "Brazilian government discredits the Wright Brothers achievements" claim.  wildie ·  wilđ di¢e  ·  wilł die  13:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * wildie, just wanted to say that you are hitting the nail on the head with your argument. The opening section of the article about Santos-Dumont is NO place to discuss either the Wright Brothers or the Brasilian attitudes (notice plural) towards first flight. The topic is solely Santos-Dumont and should remain so. I'm glad you are not getting nationalistic, as our unnamed non-neutral friend appears to be doing. I applaud your sense of decorum and drive to remain on subject. Thank you, too, for refraining from return volleys of Ad Hominem attacks. --LeyteWolfer 02:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wright Brothers
The Wright Brothers flights are totally discredited on this page from the Brazilian Federal Government.http://www.santosdumont.14bis.mil.br/index.php/content/view/1402.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.71.158.56 (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It has occurred to me we need a perspective change. As the defenders of the current article have found, it can be difficult to get thru the emotionalism brought to the table recently. The intent remains, however, to demonstrate why the Brasilian government's perspective to the Wright Brothers has nothing to do with the opening statement of the Alberto Santos-Dumont article. So, I've made a 'change' similar in to scope proposed by our Wright Brothers fan to the Wright Brothers' article:


 * ''The Wright brothers, Orville (August 19, 1871–January 30, 1948) and Wilbur (April 16, 1867–May 30 1912), were two Americans who are generally credited with building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight on December 17, 1903. In the two years afterward, they developed their flying machine into the first practical fixed-wing aircraft. Although not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft, the Wright brothers were the first to invent aircraft controls that made mechanical fixed wing flight practical.


 * ''They gained the mechanical skills essential for their success by working for years in their shop with printing presses, bicycles, motors, and other machinery. Their work with bicycles in particular influenced their belief that an unstable vehicle like a flying machine could be controlled and balanced with practice.


 * The Wright brothers' status as inventors of the airplane has been subject to counter-claims by various parties. Much controversy persists over the many competing claims of early aviators. The US government discredits Alberto Santos-Dumont's flight in 1906 as irrelevant to aviation pioneering by excluding it from every known American school textbook. 


 * Now, does anyone feel that this change (last sentence, in bold) would improve the Wright Brothers' article? Does it even belong in the opening statement of the Wright Brothers? Now, of course, I'd oppose this change to the Wright Brothers' article even if a similar change was made to the Alberto Santos-Dumont one. I highlight this example as why any reference to one government's views on a non-subject person are irrelevant to the subject person. Does that help explain our opposition to your proposed changes? -LeyteWolfer 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the stance of the brazilian government does not deserve a prominent place in this article but I hope you are not seriously trying to suggest that the US government directly or indirectly excludes any mention of Alberto Santos-Dumont's flight from textbooks. The US government does not mandate the content of textbooks.Zebulin 15:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I do not. I used it only as an example, not as fact. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Non NPOV, Biased and Innacurate Changes to this Article by BlueJay Should be Removed
I believe that the title above says everything. User BlueJay has ignored warnings not to change the sensitive issue, has added his own point of view to the article without discussing his points here in the discussion area first, has added false and unverifiable statements and overall, has introduced a number of heavily biased, innacurate and unverifiable comments whose main intent is to diminish the achievements of Santos Dumont.

Not everything he says is false (though a lot is) but is written in such a way as to discredit those who claim and believe that Santos Dumont was an important pioneer of aviation.

Here are some examples of his careless unsupported claims:

"However, celebration was premature because the 14-bis was incapable of sustained or controlled flight and was thus not a true airplane"

"This much-heralded event was hailed by the [Aero-Club De France as the first airplane flight in Europe although the claim was premature as the 14-bis did not meet the definition of a true airplane"

"On 12 November 1906, Santos-Dumont flew the 14-bis 220 metres in 21.5 seconds. The longest of this craft's nine flights, this two was a marginally controlled wallow in ground effect. Built up of box kites as invented by Australian Lawrence Hargrave in 1893, the 14-bis was a technological dead end that influenced no other aerial experimenters."

Mr BlueJay tries to discredit Santos Dumont with the above statements by asserting that his accomplishments were not relevant due to the benefit of "ground effect". Fact is that no one expects the first flight in Europe (or any of the early flights, including Wright Brothers') that did not end in disaster to be a perfect flight or even manoeverable. Or does anyone claim that the Wright Bros never flew in 1903 just because their plane was not manoeverable at first ? The fact that Santos Dumont benefited from a real physical phenomena, if it's true, doesn't really matter either. His plane DID take-off, flew and landed on his own means. And he did set the first world record on aviation which is STILL recognized to this date, as much as Mr BlueJay tries to deny it (just check FAI page if you want to confirm).

And the comment about the inventor of box kites, which to me sounds ridiculous, are not at all meaningfull for the discussion, as it Santos, like the Wright Bros themselves and every other aviation pioneer, gladly used old inventions in a way that no one had done (or could have done) before. The Wright Bros did not invent the wings, or the sailplane, or the bycicle, or the internal combustion engine, yet they also used all of those things in their Flyer.

The excerpt below is even worse:

"It was also questionably hailed as the first public demonstration in the world of an aircraft taking off from an ordinary airstrip with a non-detachable landing gear and under its own power in calm weather, proving to the spectators that a heavier-than-air craft could take off from the ground by its own means"

Why is it questionable ? Does Mr BlueJay has a counter example ? Or does he thing the event did not happen ? Or does the description of the event is wrong ? He does not reply to any of these questions, just throws in a demeriting comment as if he knew better that our readers and contributors.

I believe we must simply remove everything he added, and I will do so until either I am forbidden to edit this page or he is. Yes, I am indignated by the changes he has done. His comments, I believe, are against everything that we strive for in Wikipedia and completely ignore warnings in this same page to avoid doing changes like the ones he did.

But unlike Mr BlueJay, I would like to share with the comunity my indignation and wait a couple of days for any feedback or any different views before taking any action.

Nelbr (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now reverted the sections that were altered by bluejay52 to their previous text. If any of you had done any editing on top of his remarks, it is gone too. I did not touch any unrelated changes though. I invite everyone that agrees with his points of view to come here and defend them so that we change the text in a balanced way.

Nelbr (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the reverted version does not appear to be improved in any factual sense. It is less informative and still non npov.Zebulin (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Zebelin,

I believe it is the other way around. The previous version was a result of several years of discussion and controversy and it were the changes that were unbalanced an NPOV. The old version is far from perfect, and everybody should feel free to carefully improve on it.

However, if you believe it is NPOV, you have to tell us exactly why, and we can chage it but always keeping a balanced and a neutral point of view towards the opinions of people who may not agree with you.

Nelbr (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's quite a large number of subtle changes and omissions. I'll need more time to give it the discussion it deserves.Zebulin (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Contaminated article
It was with a keen interest that I've read both the article and the discussions on it. And I'm impressed on how national feelings contaminated this article. I've read the same article on Santos Dumont and another on Aviation in Italian, French, Catalan, Esperanto, Ido, Portuguese and Spanish (which is a translation of the portuguese article). And I wasn't surprised to see that only the english article has been used for nationalistic propaganda; meaning, using an article on SD to come on the defense of the american national heroes? It makes no sense and it is definitely not a good contribution. On the portuguese article of the Brothers Wright,for instance, we find no reference to SD or to any controversy, it is a very clean and plain article. Why can't we keep the english article on the same level?

Basically what the author of Controversy vis-à-vis Wright brothers said is: some over do his importance for when he made his first controlled flight the brothers Wright had long before done the same, and much better; or still: some naively regard him as the 'Father of Aviation' only because he has the first international record of aviation but this record is of no importance because the Brothers Wright had flew before he did.

We need to urgently improve this article. We must keep in mind that the english articles on wikipedia are reference to people from all around the world and not only to Americans.

The session Controversy vis-à-vis Wright brothers ought not to be there. It is not the place for that. This here is the most appropriate place for that discussion, hence the name discussion.

And by the way, just to draw a comparison; I personally believe in extraterrestrial intelligent life; as I see it there is good and enough eyewitnesses and evidence to support the case. But it is no science, there is not a single event homologated and officialized by any scientific or representative organ.

On the same way I strongly believe that the brothers Wright flew before 1906, but that is a personal believe I share with many based on witnesses and evidences which seam to be good enough, but as a historical unquestionable fact we can only assert on their first homologated and official flight which took place in Paris in 1909. But yet if homologation is not at all important to assert the strictest accuracy on historical facts let's remember that there seams to be also enough evidence to support Ader's first heavier-than-air flight in 1890.

But the most important we should keep in mind is that those are my opinions and that here is that appropriate place to discuss them not on the article. So let's see if we can talk again about this article and try to take it to a better level.--Onthetalks (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "homologated and officialized"? What kind of nonsense are you selling? There are eyewitness accounts and photographs of the Wrights' 1903 flight. What do you want? It's not good enough because it didn't take place in Paris? Because no Europeans were there? Because Santos-Dumont wasn't? Because it invalidates Santos-Dumont's claim? He made the first controlled flight in a dirigible. That's pretty notable in itself. Be satisfied with that. Trekphiler (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Trekphiler. I couldn't leave the most evident feelings on your last words pass unnoticed. From what I could get on these discussions it has been made clear for me that our dear fellow onthetalks was rather trying to counter balance a very pro-American nationalistic tendency which was present on the "Controversy vs. Wright Brothers" section and which has indeed been considerably improved. More over returning to your positions, yes I personally think that scientific and official homologation is of some importance. Other wise, here I reproduce the same line of thought used by our friend onthetalks, we would be forced to accept the earlier pictures of the Loch Ness "Monster" as a validating prof. It is important to notice that in 1992, after decades selling those photos, its author admitted, before dying, that it was a forgery. It is very clear that the same would have been impossible to reproduce with a scientific team on the spot analyzing the procedures taken to register the alleged apparition of the alleged existing monster. And most important of notice is your pointing of a possible invalidation of Mr. Dumont's claim. It is here very important to point that unlike some many other avant guard thinkers, inventor and scientists (here I can mention Freud who after recognizing his teacher as the earliest developer of modern psychoanalysis recant and called upon himself the title of The Creator of Psychoanalysis) Mr. Dumont, as far as I understand, never disputed this title. It was the international society that from his time to our days that bestowed upon him the title of "Père de la Aviation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utilitarious (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Loch Ness analogy would be more fitting if the original photographer had shown up later in public with the actual Monster in tow, only to have people claim that there was no Monster in the early photo. -grummerx (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm Brazilian and say Santos Dumont first flight belief is pure nationalism, even the Brazilian Historians cannot contest with historical accuracy, the feeling is contamined with pride by people that are unemployed, uneducated, anti-americanism and pro-communism tendencious in public universities that hosts the most important research centers. BTW this will never end, Brazilians fully believes they are nation of the future and still elects and sustaining polictical corruption. The Brazilian Pride is not more than a nationalism inducted by Rede Globo and Communists dreamers. My 2 cents. IP Brazil: --201.79.180.7 (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You auto know
Did Santos-Dumont also build cars in the U.S.? Trekphiler (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are various myths about him. Many believe he invented the wrist watch, despite clock on arms being used since early 18º century. --201.8.176.85 (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is: Santos Dumont was the FIRST man to fly without any support. So YES, Santos Dumont is the Father of Aviation! And that is it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.217.23.66 (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

President Clinton's acknowledgement (of sorts)
Is it worth noting at some section in the article (controversy vis-a-vis Wright.., trivia section) that President Bill Clinton, in a speech while in Brazil, referred to Santos-Dumont as "the father of aviation?"

(transcript of the speech: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-20418704.html).

I'm pretty convinced this is part of the speech as a friendly and somewhat ambiguous gesture (do dirigibles count as aviation?) and less the confession of the Wright brothers' fraud that so many Brazilians would like to hear (I am studying in Brazil and learned of the controversy only now), but it is an interesting sidenote.

I'm not touching this caustic article until someone gives me the go-ahead. Eccomi (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

unassisted / assisted
I have a question here about the phrasing of assisted / unassisted. While I understand that taking off with the aid of a catapult is "assisted" I don't see how using rails instead of wheels is "assisted" Is using rails on a soft surfaceany more assistance than using a hard surface and wheels?--24.160.128.207 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So when an F-18 takes off from an aircraft carrier, assisted by a catapult, and subsequently lands on the same aircraft carrier, assisted by arresting gear, would it be accurate to say that the F-18 never accomplishes heavier than air flight because it was "assisted"?--24.160.128.207 (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The F-18 cannot take off from an aircraft carrier unassisted. It doesn´t mean it never accomplishes heavier than air flight, it just means that it cannot take off unassisted. Regarding the first question, using a rail instead of wheels does not mean it is assisted take off. Some discussion exists whether the rail on Kitty Hawk dunes laid flat or inclined in a sand dune. If they were inclined, than the take-off would have been "gravity assisted", as it would have used the gravity force to aid on the accelaration of the plane. What is however well documented, by the Wright Bros. themselves, is that the flyer COULD NOT take off unassisted on a flat surface on non-windy days. This became a larger problem in the Huffman Praire, as there were no dunes to use as support for inclined rail on non-windy days, and thus, the construction and use of the catapult from September 1904. Nelbr 194.179.83.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Just to set the record straight (if possible), Wilbur's flight attempt on December 14, 1903 was indeed made from an incline and was gravity-assisted---the rail was laid on the slope of a very large sand dune (Big Kill Devil Hill, I believe). The Library of Congress has Wright brothers photographs clearly showing this fact. In contrast, the flights on December 17 were made from a level surface, also shown clearly in the Wright photos held by the Library (and shown in the Wright brothers and Wright Flyer articles). It is true the 1904 Flyer had difficulty taking off and making sustained flight without a breeze. That, however, does not prove it could not. As mentioned earlier, the problem was the impracticality of making a long enough takeoff run to gain sufficient speed. A very long run was not possible on the rough surface of Huffman Prairie, so they used a catapult. The fact that the same airplane with the same engine (and also the 1905 airplane) made sustained circling flights after a catapult launch seems to prove that either Flyer could make such flights without a catapult if the field conditions allowed it to make a long enough takeoff run to gain the amount of speed provided by the catapult. DonFB (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, flying in circles does not prove that the Flyer could eventually take off without a catapult on windless days with a longer rail. An airplane in the air does not need to overcame the attrition it encounters when running in the ground, specially in the Wright Bros. case, as the use of a rail caused this attrition to be substantial (remember the Flyer had no wheels). That is why the Flyer was underpowered for take off but could fly once in the air, and as a result, it could not take off on days with little or no wind. Of course, should it have a stronger engine, it would be able to take off. But increasing the length of the rail does not guarantee that eventually the plane would take off. It might, but not necessarily. And it was never done... Nelbr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.113.51 (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Father of Aviation
Copernicus and Galileo were not the first to propose an heliocentric theory. Herodotus was not the first to pursue a purely historical account of past events. In fact the Hebrews had already done it much earlier to Herodotus' time and none, neither the Hebrews nor Herodotus, achieved a level of pure Historical account. Even though Thucydides was a historian and achieved a much more purely scientific level on his historical accounts and even though the Hebrews had preceded Herodotus by many centuries on his quest it is still to Herodotus that any modern historian refer by saying "The Father of History". No title or formal recognition is given to the ancient Hebrews on that account and to Thucydides we attributed the title of "father of scientific history", as if any historian could accept serious history to be treated in a nonscientific way. Well Herodotus did, and yet he is the "Father of History". What I am trying to establish here is a clear line from which we may distinguish the idea of first to fly from that of "Father of Aviation". The brothers Wright might well have flew before Mr. Dumont, and as we know it and in a general term may suppose, others might have done the same before both. But it wasn't from Ader's or from the Wright's works that Aviation with general and immediate adherence and in many countries took place, it was from Mr. Dumont's flight seen and right after reproduced by many. But the least evoked thought the strongest argument in favor of Mr. Dumont's acceptance as the factual "Father of Aviation" is once again completely out of the discussion of who first flight. It is not at all difficult for anyone to just by looking at the replicas or even graphic models, projects and pictures to see that it was from neither Dumont's 14 Biz nor from the Wright's Flyer and definitely not from Ader's alleged bat like heavier-than-air that modern aviation developed. Now, just by "having a look" at the 1909 Dumont's Demoiselle any one can clearly see that same structure of an airborne which were latter used during the first World War and is still used to our days not only in military but in the commercial aviation known to all of us. For all the above mentioned, not entering into the discussion of who first flew, I am completely in support of Santos Dumont as the factual Father of Modern Aviation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utilitarious (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a very learned commentary. Keep in mind that Santos traveled to the U.S. in 1904 to perform with a dirigible at an airshow in St. Louis at which the Wrights were also considering participating (none of them actually did). I do not have specific documentation to offer, but it is very likely that Santos was aware by then of the Wrights' glider tests and Kitty Hawk flights. Chanute publicized the Wrights' work in Europe and that stimulated people like Ferber and Archdeacon to begin building gliders "type du Wright". Again, I don't have documentation, but it hardly seems like a mere coincidence that Santos' 14-bis strongly resembles the general configuration of Wright gliders and the Flyer with a foward control unit (the "canard") and biplane wings. Therefore, it is quite likely he based his design on the Wright's work. Althought the Wrights did not perform as publicly as Santos, it is historical fact that the Wrights' work, and Chanute's writing and speeches about it, inspired the Europeans to renew their flying machine efforts in 1904. Santos' 1906 flights further stimulated the European aviation community. Ferber even wrote to the French Aero Club to urge his countrymen not to allow the Wrights to beat the French at inventing a flying machine. By then, however, it was too late. The Americans had already invented it. DonFB (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Deutsch de la Meurthe prize: When?
From the lead:"'[He won the] Deutsch de la Meurthe prize on October 19, 1900 on a flight that rounded the Eiffel Tower'"

From "Balloons and dirigibles": "The zenith of his lighter-than-air career came when he won the Deutsch de la Meurthe prize. The challenge called for flying from the Parc Saint Cloud to the Eiffel Tower and back in less than thirty minutes. The winner of the prize needed to maintain an average ground speed of at least 22 km/h (14 mph) to cover the round trip distance of 11 km (6.8 miles) in the allotted time.

On October 19, 1901, after several attempts and trials, Santos-Dumont succeeded in using his dirigible Number 6." When did the Deutsch de la Meurthe prize prixe flight actually occur? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Santos Dumont himself, in his book "O Que Eu Vi, O Que Nós Veremos" (fully viewable in

http://books.google.com/books?id=yU9t8Kts_DoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22o+que+eu+vi,+o+que+n%C3%B3s+veremos%22#PPP1,M1

but in portuguese), it was in Oct 19th, 1901 . Nelbr (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So many outrageous lies and propaganda
This article claims that "Santos-Dumont made the first public flight of an airplane in Europe on October 23, 1906. Designated 14-bis or Oiseau de proie (French for "bird of prey"), the flying machine was the first fixed-wing aircraft officially witnessed to take off, fly, and land. Santos-Dumont is considered the "Father of Aviation" not only in Brazil, but also in Europe."

I can't believe that such outrageous lies can be promoted on wikipedia in such a blatant manner.

The first public flight of an airplane in Europe and the first flight of an heavier-than-air machine with their own takeoff systems, propulsion units and landing gear was made by the Romanian Traian Vuia on MARCH 18, 1906. Maybe it is hard to understand but Vuia's first flight in Europe was made before Dumont's so-called "first" flight simply because March is before October. It is as dishonourable as unproven to claim that Dumont made what Traian Vuia performed many months before him. The fact itself that Dumont was awarded as the first aviator to fly more than 25 metres is an acknowledgment that there was others before who flew less. Wikipedia should be a place of knowledge not of blatant and false propaganda.Azdfg (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a place of sources. Please provide some.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your criticism is worth consideration. Why don't you try to edit the Introduction so it more fairly reflects the facts. Remember, anyone can edit Wikipedia. I would suggest that any re-wording emphasize the flight was the first to be "officially witnessed". If you introduce Vuia's name, an edit war may begin. It seems that your main complaint is the use of "first public". Do you agree that the Santos flight was the "first officially witnessed"? I think that is a factual statement. DonFB (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with DonFB, you should try an edit. But, as I said, you need to refer to sources. It doesn't matter what we think, it matters what reliable sources say. That's the policy at Wikipedia.  AK Radecki Speaketh  17:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not in a mood to start an edit war. Talking about sources,I googled for "father of aviation" and I didn't find any evidence that Dumont is widely considered "father of aviation" outside Brazil.

From what I found with google it seems that different countries have different fathers of aviations.Azdfg (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition of an Airplane
"a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, etc."

Source: Webster's English Dictionary

1.) The Wright Brothers flight in 1903 had three-axis control. 2.) The 1903 Wright flight had a internal combustion engine with a screw propeller which powered the aircraft to sustain its ability to continuously fly. 3.) The Wright Flyer had better three-axis control than Dumont's Bis.

And to all of the pro-Dumont's.... why is it that none of you ever have an explanation to the fact that Wilbur Wright flew 24 miles in 39 minutes in the year 1905 which was witnessed by spectators and exactly one year before Santos Dumont even flew for the first time?

No matter how hard you try, history is not on your side. --Yoganate79 (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review
Good article reassessment/Alberto Santos-Dumont/1

I've requested a community reassessment of this article. Please take a moment to comment. Thank you.  APK  thinks he's ready for his closeup  13:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Number 7
I have read in two sources that Number 7 was sabotated, damaged, in Saint Louis. It is said: "De volta a Paris, construiu o nº 7, do tipo chamado 'dirigível de corrida', que não encontrava competidores na época, com sua velocidade de 70-80 km por hora, proporcionada por um motor de 60 HP. Inscreveu-o para concorrer ao prêmio da exposição internacional de St. Louis, E.U.A., em 1904, mas o balão foi inutilizado, presumivelmente por sabotagem, às vésperas da prova."BARBOSA, Francisco de Assis; CASTRO, Moacir Werneck de. Santos Dumont. In: Enciclopédia Mirador Internacional. São Paulo: Encyclopædia Britannica do Brasil Publicações, 1979. v. 18, p. 10201. Trying to translate (with google translate help): "Back in Paris, built Number 7, of the type called 'ship of race', which had no competitors in that time, with the speed of 70-80 km per hour, provided by a motor of 60 HP. Put him to compete for the prize of the international exhibition of St. Louis, USA, in 1904, but the balloon was destroyed, presumably by sabotage on the eve of trial."--Ferreiratalk 22:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ferber quote
I don't see what this contributes to the article. The letter actually claims the rail/catapult system is more pactical because it does not need a large field, and surely the stuff about "two poor mechanics" is just a slightly tongue in cheek excuse. The catapult & rail would not have harder to transport thn the crated aircraft.TheLongTone (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)