Talk:Aurel Vlaicu

[Untitled]
This page needs followup to confirm which of the two universities in Munchen Mr. Vlaicu attended. See hidden comment in main page. --Gary D 06:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we need the 50 lei bill in the text?
I guess that the bill is here to show a portrait of him but is that really necessary? It seems so unrelated to the text...89.136.41.31 (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Apass

Protochronism
Claims made here must be viewed in the light of Protochronism - the widespread falsification of Romanian history (whereby they make absurd attempts to having invented nearly everything). All sources on Aurel Vlaicu are Romanian and are thus unreliable. No mention of him is to be found in contemporary western aviation sources.NiD.29 (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Add the absurd claim about being the first military flight after the French when many other nations were already operating aircraft under the authority of the military, including operating flying schools for military aviators. Romania was preceded by France (1909), Italy (1910), Germany (1910), Russia (1910), and the US (1909) in using aircraft for military purposes. Just about the only major power left out is the UK.

RESPONSE: Why do you think that Romanian sources are unreliable?
 * Maybe you should read the article on Protochromism linked above? Simply put, the Romanian government had an official policy of fabricating history to make it seem that Romanians were in the midst of many cultural and technological innovations (making absurd claims that they had been responsible for them) when in fact they were a minor backwater whose sum total contribution to humankind has been negligible at best. This widespread fabrication colours anything published in Roumania, and will do so for a long time to come.NiD.29 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Flying airplanes by military officers trained as pilots does not mean using these aircraft for "military purposes". Vlaicu delivered an envelope to the Chief of Staff.

When the aircraft is owned and operated by the military then EVERYTHING IT DOES (including training military aviators) is for military purposes, unlike a civilian pilot in his own private aircraft delivering an envelope - something that likely occurred even in the UK before it did in Romania.NiD.29 (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

RESPONSE: ''A. Vlaicu nr. I'' was build between Nov. 1909 and May 1010 with funding from the Romanian Minister of War. Months later they wanted to put the airplane to use, and it happened during the Fall Military Exercises. An there is a photograph for it in the article. In the spirit of Wikipedia, your claim "something that likely occurred even in the UK before it did in Romania" has to be substantiated with at least 1 (one) reference. Simiprof


 * The problem isn't the claim that he flew a message, it is that you are making the claim he was one of the first, which the evidence is overwhelming that he was not, other than in Roumania. You need a reference to make your claim, I do not need to provide a long list of references to counter your silly unsubstantiated claim.NiD.29 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

RESPONSE: You make stereotypical statements, incompatible with a veteran Wikipedia editor. Maybe some Romanians living in the UK stole your spare tire lately, but that does not mean that Romanians are worthless. Simiprof
 * 1) You still need to learn to sign your posts.
 * 2) I do not live in the UK, nor am I from there (although I have visited there twice, while Romania is still on the todo list), nor do I particularly care one way or the other about Roumanians in general. Why would you assume I must have had a tire stolen by a Romanian? Are you suggesting something about Romanians? I wasn't aware this was a favourite pastime there.
 * 3) I do care about absurd claims, both here and on other pages, and that has nothing to do with Roumania.
 * 4) The Roumanian Government's policy colours any claims made, especially when they are unknown outside of Roumania. The Romanian people are no better or worse than people anywhere, however, people of all types are prone to believe the most absurd things, particularly when they have been told enough times, and equally will cling to those beliefs despite any and all evidence to the contrary.NiD.29 (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Sorry NiD.29 ! You lack impartiality and I lack the time to argue with you. Simiprof
 * Glad to see that you are finally starting to sign your posts (though you need to use 4 tildas so the date and time are added), as I said, the problem isn't with the nationality, but with the past policy of fabricating history. Nothing POV or partial about it, and I should point out that I have previously removeed absurd claims from British aircraft pages - false claims are false claims, regardless of nationality, however the Romanians ARE the only ones to have made falsification of history a government policy.
 * Clearly you misunderstand my entries here regarding Rumanians - I was getting very tired of having my well thought out edits to fix the atrocious grammar and worse wording, along with the absurd claims reverted without so much as a single edit summary in reply, or any comments here as is standard practice. Obviously you do not understand wikipedia, with you reverting other people's edits while refusing to divulge your reasoning or sources, so I could find where your misunderstandings were coming from, so as to be able to fix the problem.
 * As to prior claims (from The Aerospace Chronology by Michael Taylor... which lists the first flight of the Vlaicu, but not the exhibition with Garros.) -
 * 14 May 1909 - Samuel Cody flies British Army Aeroplane No 1 more than a mile (first flight of this military aeroplane was in October 1908).
 * 2 August 1909 - US Army purchases its first airplane the Wright 1909 Military Flyer, after testing the Wright flyer since 3 September 1908.
 * April 1910 - French Air Force formed.
 * 9 June 1910 - Henry Farman biplane used for photographic reconnaissance for French military.
 * 10 June 1010 - Wright biplane taken into French Army Service.
 * 30 June 1910 - Glenn Hammond drop dummy bombs from aircraft. (One of a number of people to do so)
 * 20 August 1910 - Lt Jacob Earl Fickel, US Army, fires a rifle from Curtiss biplane.

Russia formed an organization and raised money for military aircraft in January 1910 but didn't recieve their first military aircraft until 1911, though its pilots were in training during 1910 in France and from September in Russia. The German Army received its first aircraft (a Taube monoplane) in October 1910 but the first German military pilot had already soloed on 23 July 1910. I don't have much info on Serbian or Italian aviation, both of whom were also early adopters of aircraft. NiD.29 (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

NACA cowling
And please be reasonable to admit that the Vlaicu's cowled engines, particularly that of ''A. Vlaicu Nr. III'' is a NACA cowling: "The NACA cowling directs cool air to flow through the engine where it is routed across the motor's hottest parts, i.e. the cylinders and even more importantly, the cylinder heads."
 * This shows a lack of understanding of the full effects of an NACA cowling, which doesn't just direct air around the engine, but actually boosts propulsion via the Meredith effect, and had been a development of the earlier Townend ring which had a similar effect. The cowlings used during WW1 and before completely lacked this ability (and in fact didn't fly fast enough for it to make much of a difference) and were thus not NACA cowlings, doing little more than preventing oil from spraying up into the pilots face. It was a cowling, pure and simple and doesn't need a wikilink.NiD.29 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Old Photographs
All B/W photographs are over 100 years old. The color ones are mine. Please do not delete them en block.

Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) . You need to sign posts on the talk page with 4 tildas (ie: ~ ). This is a wikipedia rule.
 * 2) . You need to indicate on each photo's page that the photos are from your private collection, and that copyright is expired. (please do this soon, before they are deleted - I would like to see some of them on here, even if the gallery was excessive)
 * 3) . You cannot simply remove tags because you disapprove of them - you need to fix the problem(s) first.


 * Old black/white photos can still be copyrighted if they have never been published or only recent published, private collection doesnt tell us anything we need (or commons do) the provenance of the image. That said most of them are not needed in the article that is why we have commons. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Vlaicu III shipped to Germany
"Vlaicu III was seized and shipped to Germany, and it was last seen in 1942 at an aviation exhibition in Berlin." C-tin C. Gheorghiu cites two Romanian Air-force officers that saw the airplane in Berlin at the said exhibition.


 * Is pretty much the authority on the Berlin aviation exhibition, and it makes no reference to the Vlaicu. A lot of aircraft over the years have been misidentified as having been there, and in this case it is likely they mistook something else for the Vlaicu.NiD.29 (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A photograph of it clearly at the exhibition would of course clear this up, however none of the photos I have seen (and the exhibition was extensively photographed) show the Vlaicu.NiD.29 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Photographs
Can somebody identify more of the people pictured here with Vlaicu?





Vlaicu with friends on Cotroceni air filed. From right to left: Caragiale (in the background, holding a walking cane), Magnani, Vlaicu, others. According to some reports, sitting in front of Vlaicu is his brother Ion



From left to right: Giovanni Magnani, Aurel Vlaicu, Ion Ciulu (Vlaicu's mechanic) and a friend in front of ''A. Vlaicu Nr. II''

Simiprof (talk)

Gallery
Can we keep some of the picture in the gallery? Certainly Wikipedia is not Pintrest, but the pictures add value to the article. Plus there are available nowhere else on the internet. Thank you! Simiprof (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is that they are available elsewhere - at Wiki Commons, which is why there is a link to it there. In general we avoid massive photo galleries on Wikipedia and limit pictures to a quantity that fits in the article text. If more text is added then more photos will fit as well. I mean seriously, including scans of his student notebooks in an encyclopedia article? That is way beyond WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ANSWER: Then why not removing only the student note scans and keep the rest? Still, his student notes show that (1) Aurel Vlaicu studied engineering and (2) was good at hand drawing.  (I teach engineering, and today's student have a hard time drawing by hand - I had this in mind also when posting his sketches).  Simiprof (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not just the notes, there are way, way too many photos overall for the article. With the gallery it had 37 images on the page!! It makes it look like a "hero-worship" memorial instead of an encyclopedia article.


 * To get some wider input I have asked for other editors to express their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Image_use_policy some gallery photos should be allowed. Could you please include a link to the Wikimedia Commons for Aurel Vlaicu in the see also section, because I don't know how to do it? Simiprof (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ahunt about the gallery adding nothing. And the two images of the Vlaicu II are too similar for both to merit inclusion. Incidentally the aircraft articles are surely misnamed, the initial is not neccessary.TheLongTone (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

[ANSWER]: Vlaicu himself was naming his airplanes "A Vlaicu" see:

and.

I still believe that some gallery photos should be allowed. I am considering restoring some of them in the future. Regards, Simiprof (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Ahunt. This article is already well illustrated, perhaps too well. The gallery belongs on the Commons. If you wish to restore a few images, make sure you discuss it here first, but I do not hold out much hope for you. There is nothing notable about writing your name on an aeroplane. As for student notes, these are primary source material and drawing any conclusions from them would be original research and has no place here either. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The commons link doesn't belong in the "see also" because that is for internal links, not external links. The commons link is where it belongs, under external links. Personally I think a lot of the images and such really belong on a "fan site" and not in an encyclopedia article. So far the consensus seems to be against the gallery and the excessive number of images, but let's wait a few days for some wider opinions to get a more complete consensus to emerge. - Ahunt (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with eliminating some of the gallery pics, but not with removing them entirely. Unfortunately, we cannot ask the 300+ daily [visitors of the Aurel Vlaicu page] if they like to have a picture gallery with the article or not. Simiprof (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

37 images is surely far too many? I took a fairly random selection from the aviators list, unscientifically picked by recognising names from the days before WWI. On average, these have 4 images. Two exceptions were Lilienthal (& plus 4 in a gallery) and the Wright Brothers 35. I chose these for the unusual impact on aviation of these three men and think the others are more typical pioneers.TSRL (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Readers can join the discussion here if they are interested in helping form a consensus and want a say. By the way the average number of visits over the last month is only 109. 300 was one single peak day's number. That is actually not much traffic for a Wikipedia page. To put it into perspective for an aviation subkect page, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II page had averaged 5686 visits per day in the same period.- Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of the gallery photos are beyond trivial and delve into "so what?" territory - stuff you'd find at the archives on most pioneers, and that would never end up in a book unless the author was desperate to fill up pages, much less an encyclopedia. A few significantly different photos of the man, one of each of his aircraft (more photos of the aircraft can be found on their respective pages) and the rest should stay in the commons link.NiD.29 (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Notoriety Claims
Vlaicu did more than just to "write his name on an aeroplane". Those were his airplanes, substantially different than those of his contemporaries, for which he has been granted several international patents (British, Danish and German, in addition to a Romanian patent).

''A. Vlaicu Nr. I'' flew for the first time on June 17, 1910 exactly as it was originally designed, with no modification whatsoever.

Vlaicu was the first to use two coaxial, counter-rotating propellers that canceled each other's reaction torque.

He was probably the first to install brakes to the wheels (rear wheel) of his airplane, and to fully cowl the engine - see ''A. Vlaicu Nr. III''.

NOTE: I am considering displaying Vlaicu's pilot license in a gallery to the article, in addition to some of the above pics.

Regards,

Simiprof (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you are wrong both about the brakes and the co-axial propeller. Howard Wright built an aircraft with a coaxial propeller in 1909 & Breguet had fitted brakes by 1911, I believe. The Deperdussin Monocoque of 1912 was fully cowled.TheLongTone (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I am not seeing two propellers on Howard Wright 1909 Biplane - it is a pusher that looks very much like a Voisin / Farman III, while Breguet flew after Vlaicu I. Simiprof (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the description of the Howard Wrught machine in the 1909 Flight report on the Aero show at Olympia. Actually I think most of these who did what first disputes are stupid.TheLongTone (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As is well understood in aviation history circles, you have to be very cautious in accepting claims of firsts for Romanians. In the communist era the national government caused many wild claims to be published to stir up Romanian nationalism and these sorts of books often turn up here as refs, though they are not reliable sources. See the section on above. - Ahunt (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please provide references of pre-Vlaicu I airplanes that had co-axial counter-rotating propellers. Those are visible in photographs, irrespective of Protochronism theories.

"well understood in aviation history circles"  Who is aviation historian here by the way?! Simiprof (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you are indeed a professor as you claim (or even a university level student with passing grades), you more than most should be aware of the past history of the Romanian government in fabricating large swathes of history to make the most absurd claims. There is an entire branch of history devoted to it, so yes, "well understood" sums it up pretty well.


 * As for it being in a photo - first, that is original research, which is strictly verboten here as has been mentioned multiple times, and second is the claim about being first, which isn't proven by the photo at all - it merely shows that it had it, not that it was first. In fact it is likely that the first instances of coaxial propellers and brakes and almost any other claim pre-date the Wright brothers flight, as many such innovations did. Finally even if the configuration of his aircraft is unique, (doubtful given the dizzying variety of configurations tried out in France, the UK and the US) that is hardly something to boast of, as it means it probably wasn't a very good configuration, otherwise others would have used it, and if they had, they were not exactly well known, meaning they weren't all that successful. Why the need to add dross to a perfectly good article? He was a Romanian/Austro-Hungarian who built some early aircraft that flew, until he crashed one of them and killed himself - end of story. No need to make up a bunch of bs to make it seem like he was more important than he ever was. It is doubtful anyone outside Romanian had even heard of him even at the peak of his career, and claims about his importance have to be taken in that context.NiD.29 (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Howard Wright reference is here: it is also linked in the aircraft type article. TheLongTone (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Simiprof, you write, "Vlaicu did more than just to "write his name on an aeroplane". Those were his airplanes..." as if somebody is challenging that. I did not and nobody here is, but you made the point in a discussion about the image gallery and I replied also in the context of the image gallery. If you meant something else, you will need to explain what you meant. Also, claims of being first in anything are dangerous. History is being rediscovered and shared all the time and what one community believes a "first" may lead to disappointment when one learns of the earlier example. TheLongTone links above to the Flight article on the Howard Wright machine - the "tandem" or co-axial propeller is clearly visible in the accompanying photo, with the blades alternately shadowed or highlighted showing their opposite senses.
 * I would ask that editors - of whatever opinion - keep their personal judgements of each other to themselves and remain at all times polite and civil. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Vlaicu's airplane did not go unnoticed during his lifetime. A delegate of Marconi Co. selected his during the International Flight Week in Aspern-Vienna in the Summer of 1912 (there were 40 other aviators attending that event). When Vlaicu died a year later, two copies of A Vlaicu III airplanes were under construction, one for Marconi to evaluate it for use with aerial telegraphy, and one to remain with Vlaicu. I will upload the copy of a letter send by Vlaicu to his parents, where he mentions his relationship with Marconi Co. Of the two Vlaicu III airplanes, one was completed posthumously and disappeared during WWI. What is left of the other one is the Gnome Gamma engine, now on display in a museum in Bucharest. Imagine - a brand new Gnome Gamma engine available for some enthusiasts to build a replica of A Vlaicu III!

Another remarkable thing about Vlaicu is that he build his airplanes on very tight budgets (around 15,000 Romanian lei each of his first two airplanes - an army lieutenant's salary then was 600 lei a month). When Bleriot came to Bucharest to fly on Oct. 1909, his remuneration was 80,000 lei! And you know what? The demonstration had to be postponed because at the first attempt, on Oct. 14, the propeller of Bleriot's airplane broke and they had to ship a new one from France.

Same as with the automobile, there were a number of engineers and inventors that contributed to the advancement of the airplane. (I am seeing now that the counter-rotating props were indeed tried before - thanks for the link.).

Let as not forget that this controversy started by having the gallery to the article removed entirely. Of those pics and photocopies, some are documents relevant to the life of Aurel Vlaicu - like for example his knowledge of Machine Elements and of German language (in addition to Romanian and Hungarian), or the network of friends (writers and journalists) that helped him during his short career in Bucharest.

So Dear Folks: Feel free to add galleries to other aviation pioneers' articles that you favor, but allow me to restore some of the gallery photos to this article. Thank you!

As for you NiD.29, I am sure you are nice in person. Unfortunately I don't see how we could meet so that you could prove me right. And yes, I am an university prof. Simiprof (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * From this discussion so far there is clearly a consensus that a gallery of photos and especially of documents does not belong in an encyclopedia article. They are all available on Commons and linked from the article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is very clear that consensus is against the gallery, and removing it entirely was indeed the correct thing to do. The controversy continues only because one editor does not yet understand why the gallery is not appropriate. The rest of us have explained at length why images providing evidence of various claims are not appropriate here. Yes, they are lovely historic images, they support fascinating historical claims and anecdotes which may well be true in part or in whole, and a gallery of them somewhere is an excellent idea. In fact, there is a Wikimedia Commons for this very purpose, where the images in fact already live. That is where the gallery belongs too. But they are not the kind of images we Wikipedians put in our biographies. "Feel free to add galleries to other aviation pioneers' articles that you favor" - no, no, you utterly misunderstand, this is not about Vlaicu, it is about biographical articles - no such galleries, not even for my own national pioneers such as George Cayley, Samuel Franklin Cody and John William Dunne, no galleries for them, either! "allow me to restore some of the gallery photos to this article" - I do not think so; as far as I can see none of those images best illustrates a notable aspect of Vlaicu's life discussed in the article (and I mean illustrates, not supports or demonstrates or shows - that must all be in the text and notes), the images worth having are already in the article. I do not think we can be clearer about this. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * By unnoticed, I am referring to the seeming paucity of coverage in the main aviation periodicals of the era, beyond that of Marconi and a few aviators being aware of its existence. A Bleriot with a broken prop is not unusual for the era - indeed it was a common occurrence (odd that he wasn't better prepared - perhaps he'd broken his spares). Vlaicu had an advantage, having workshops nearby.
 * Pay rates are hard to compare as the workmen doing most of the fabrication would have been paid very little in comparison to an army officer's pay (whereas now that situation is reversed), but even so, it is possible to built an aircraft for less. 15,000 Lei divided by 600/mo pay is 25 months pay. Current American army pay for a 2nd Lieutenant is a minimum of $34,862, or roughly $2905/month, or $72,625 over 25 months - for which it is possible to design and build a homebuilt from scratch and equip it with a engine and prop. Not an unusually tight budget, but perhaps better budgeted than some, and many of the materials are now relatively more expensive than they were then. Keep in mind Bleriot's remuneration would have been higher because he had a proven design already widely used with many well known records and exploits to his credit, and he probably wouldn't have travelled to Romania without a sufficiently large financial inducement, and the people cutting the cheques wanted his airplane badly enough to pay far more than they would for an untested aircraft of unknown capabilities. I am curious as to who else they paid money to for aircraft, and the success rate for the other designers. The expenditure is pretty minimal by the standards of an army, and they could have funded dozens of hopeful aircraft designers and most failed and still get something in return. I am also curious as to why they did not, prior to his death, (seemingly) make an effort at purchasing further aircraft if it was as successful as Romanian sources imply, while they did buy Bleriot XIs.
 * Still think, that even without the gallery that the article is over illustrated.
 * Simiprof - I've been to Texas many times - mostly San Antonio and Laredo (if you are still in Texas) however I don't currently have any plans to travel - please forgive me for my skepticism. I am guessing your specialty is in mechanics?NiD.29 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Vlaicu's ethnicity
Regarding the repeated incognito change of the ethnicity of Aurel Vlaicu from Austro-Hungarian to Romanian: As you can see, there is no ethnic group called Austro-Hungarian, only a redirect to the Austria-Hungary article. There are however Austrians, Hungarians, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnian etc. - all these people were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. For example, Béla Bartók was born in Austro-Hungaria, so by the same token he should be Austro-Hungarian Hungarian. Try such an editing in Bartók article and see what happens! Simiprof (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for opening this discussion. I wish Vlaicu were as simple a case as Bartok! Auriel Vlaicu was born in Binţinţi (since renamed after him) near the town of Geoagiu, which lies in the Hunedoara County of Transylvania. At the time he lived Transylvania was part of Austria-Hungary, and did not become part of the Kingdom of Romania until 1918, several years after Vlaicu's death in 1913. But in 1909 he moved from Transylvania to the Kingdom of Romania, where he carried out most of his aeronautical work.
 * The idea behind the joining of Transylvania and other neighbouring areas with Romania was to unite all ethinic Romanians in a single country. Of course, other ethnic communities would also exist in these areas, especially from the nations who currently ruled them.
 * So, I see three questions to be answered:
 * The first is, what was Vlaicu's ethnic status? Was he definitely an ethnic Romanian, or was he born to non-Romanian parents? (I am assuming he was Romanian, but it would be good if this can be supported with a reference).
 * The second is, what was Vlaicu's nationality? Was he regarded at the time as a citizen of the Kingdom of Romania or merely a visitor from Austria-Hungary? Did he have dual nationality, with both states accepting him as a citizen?
 * And thirdly, whatever the answers are to those first two questions, how should Wikipedia reflect this in the article on him, per WP:MOSBIO?
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla is another example: Born in what is now Croatia, back then part of Austrian Empire, to Serbian parents, he is regarded as Serbian American.

Vlaicu is an old Romanian name - see Vlaicu Voda. Aurel Vlaicu was born to Romanian parents Ana and Dumitru Vlaicu as this commemorative plate acknowledges:



"In this Romanian house was born in 1882, the first flier of Ardeal AUREL VLAICU, conqueror of the sky, with his own designed and constructed airplane. Absorbed by the historical necessity of eliminating the border between brothers, like a forerunner, He indicated the road that the Romanian nation followed in 1916 towards victory and fulfillment of her centuries old aspirations. A martyr of the idea of unification and liberation, He sanctified with his young blood in 1913, the beginning of this path to salvation. Forever be blessed His memory and the nation that He was born in. ASTRA Orăștie 1925. "Aurel Vlaicu" high school Orăștie."

NOTE: Vlaicu crashed his plane and lost his life in an attempt to fly from Bucharest to Orăștie to attend ASTRA festivities. Simiprof (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what Vlaicu's immigration status was during his time in the Kingdom of Romania. One thing is for sure: He was employed by the Romanian Government during all these years.

Vlaicu was born an Austro-Hungarian citizen and the first thing in the header should be the citizenship, not ethnicity. bogdan (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

MOSBIO provides clear guidelines: Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity):  In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable . Simiprof (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the plaque. I think we can safely say that Vlaicu was an ethnic Romanian. But looking at MOSBIO a little more closely I think we already have enough information. I highlight the relevant text in bold:
 * Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);
 * 1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
 * 2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
 * So the lead should not mention either his country of birth or his ethnicity. That just leaves the country where he was a "permanent resident" when he became notable - the Kingdom of Romania. Since there is no such adjective "Kingdom of Romanian" he is just "Romanian". In other words, the anonmymous IP editor was right all along to delete the reference to Austria-Hungary. Does anybody still disagree with this? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure Romania existed as a country during his lifetime. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The first King of the Kingdom of Romania was crowned in 1881, the year before Vlaicu was born. Doesn't affect the main discussion though. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

In my judgement, is it legitimate to say that Aurel Vlaicu was "a Romanian engineer, inventor, airplane constructor and early pilot" Simiprof (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been pretty one-sided, so I see no point in waiting longer. I just got on and did it. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Cause of death
Vlaicu died in a plane crash. According to witnesses his plane stalled and fell to a side crashing from a height of about 10 meters. What contributed/caused the crash is still subject to debate. Some speculated that he had a heart attack, kidney cramps, or a mechanical failure. (24.175.231.107 (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

Hi MilborneOne: Vlaicu died in an attempt to cross the Carpathian mountains in his aged Aurel Vlaicu II plane (made in 1911). He aborted the ascent to cross the mountains, made a turn and he was looking for a landing spot near the Ploiesti-Brasov road where he could have received assistance (he was followed by friends in an automobile). Witnesses saw him trying to avoid some tries, but the airplane stalled and slipped to a side. The dart-like tail of the airplane made it stiff at low speed (the elevator and ruder were placed in front), so he was always landing with the engine off, which meant that he could never abort a landing.

The heart attack of Vlaicu has not been confirmed by an autopsy "Cauzele nu sunt nici acum cunoscute, fiind avansate atât ipoteza unui atac de cord, cât şi problele tehnice ale avionului." quote from

One thing is for sure: He did not die during a test flight.

P.S. My main reference is the 1960 monograph "Aurel Vlaicu. Un Precursor Al Aviatiei Romanesti" by C. Gheorghiu (I have a copy), who had the chance to interview some of Valicu's contemporaries. Thanks.


 * 97.98.78.51 Thanks for the explanation, if you can add a realiable reference then I dont have a problem with the change. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)