Talk:History of aviation/Archive 1

The most famous plane of the war
I removed this line : "The most famous plane of the war is the Sopwith Camel" Who says so ? I personally think the Fokker Dr.I is much more famous both by instantaneous recognizable shape and of course by the Red Barron. Sopwith can be recognized as a name for WWI aircraft but I (and I guess most people too) would have problems telling a Pup From a Camel from an old photo.--200.223.26.155 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

older entries
I was so surprised that I didn't see a single reference in Wikipedia to Alexander F. Mozhaiski (1825-1890), Russian naval officer, aviation pioneer, researcher and inventor in the design of heavier-than-air-craft. This gentleman took his machine into the air 20 years or so earlier than the Wright brothers (I can translate the material from Russian and submit it, if Wikipedia creates a link for his name). Even though people say that the Russians simply want credit for the first flight, I say it is simply unfair not to at least mention Mozhaiski's outstanding achievements in aviation even if the tsarist Russia had been ignoring the guy for most of the time because of bureaucratical stupidity and narrow-mindedness. Mozhaiski even patented his invention, but international community never really cared about patents issued in Russia to its "local" inventors.
 * Welcome to the magic of wikipedia. I took the liberty of transforming your comment in an article about aleander. Take the time to edit and translate at will.--Alexandre Van de Sande 18:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to say I'm delighted to see Wikipedia dabbling in radical thoughts! 8) That, and not repeating the errors that "everyone knows", is the kind of thing a cyclopedia should do. WP needs to do that much more often. (I leanred a lot today. I'd thought the Wright's real contribution was control surfaces--powered flight was obvious and just a matter of time--but now I see Pearce was probably the most modern in that. Guess the Wrights were first in having a piccy taken.) Kwantus 04:05, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * No they are arguable the first to achieve a controlled powered heavier-than-air flight and they were the first to photograph a controlled powered heavier-than-air flight, the first to fly more than a kilometer, the first to fly more than 1/2 hour (before Santos-Dumont got off the air) the first to carry passengers, the first to fly a woman, the first mass-produced aircraft, the first US military aircraft contractor, builder of the first plane to fly across the United States, etc. And Pearce's work had no influence on the development of aircraft even if his design are closer to modern ones -they were developed indepentently. Pearce chucked his work in a garbage heap after it failed and didn't publish it. Rmhermen 19:20, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
 * hehee. Well I'm not convinced Pearce failed except in publicity. I don't care if his methods had to be reinvented, as far can be found his methods were the more practical. (If the Wrights' control surfaces were truly their own, then that is to their credit of course, even if their method was wrong.) "First to fly more than a kilometer, the first to fly more than 1/2 hour" is just arbitrary quantification to make records - typifying the Mercan craving to claim firsts which is what's getting up my nose. "First to carry passengers" is an accomplishment but not an innovation - having a somhow nonobvious idea - same with putting an engine on a glider. (The propeller itself might count as innovative - and apparently the Wright's propeller was pretty good anyway.) "First to fly a woman" is just sexism. (It reminds me of NASA's attempt to make every flight a first in something. What was Bloom County's take - "first adenoidal mulatto touch-typist"? give it a rest.)
 * The Wrights had some firsts and good ideas and some not so good, and so did others. They should all be given their due - as best that antique due can be determined - without manufacturing or suppressing dues just so the You Assay! can have a bigger tally =p Kwantus 03:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be turned into a timeline format like on the History of rail transport article. It would certainly make it more readable.
 * yes, and Milestones in Aviation already does that, and there is Incidents in Aviation also, these pages probably need to be integrated. ledgerbob 12:21, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And secondly why is there a accuracy dispute header. G-Man 00:09, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * See edit of 02:16, 18 Dec 2003. Andy Mabbett 00:22, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really explain it. what facts are disputed exactly G-Man 00:28, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

With regards to rockets, shouldn't it be mentioned that this is offically not part of aviation history anymore but a different subject? Andries 08:32, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Rockets and rocketry are a part of aviation, and therefore are a part of aviation history. Aviation history includes anything that flies through the air and is man-made, which includes helicopters, ornithopters, baloons, dirigibles, blimps, rockets and missiles.Theon 16:16, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Quoting from article:
 * The best plane of the war is generally agreed to be the Sopwith Camel;

This is too bold of a statement to be considered true. If any plane deserves this honor it has to be the Fokker D.VII. -- Dissident (Talk) 04:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree - any thing that asserts "best" should back it up with some facts or stick to less contentious language.Graham 06:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since "Wright Brothers Flyer" outweighs "Wright Brothers Fligher" by about 10,000 : 2 (one of them this article) in Google, I'm assuming that Fligher was a misspelling and have corrected it. dramatic 06:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that's a safe bet. Graham 06:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wright brothers
I just had a little work Npoving this and some other aviation articles. Please do not overweight Wright briothers as the fathers of aviations. The best is tonot to name anyone this title, as one can see that the invention of the airplane was a long lines of great people, no matter wich natinatility, italian, german, englishman, americans and brazilian. Try to give everyone equal weight, as years of nationalistics fights have been fought over this subject. Wrights'were a small implementation of what otto did, and so was dumonts, to waht wright did, even if they haver never met.--Alexandre Van de Sande 17:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * While you're right, I believe to NOT give the Wright's the credit they deserve is also not NPOV. I don't think the Wright's themselves ever claimed anything for themselves that they got from others, and gave credit where it was due; however, they were the first to both properly study aerodynamics in a self-constructed wind tunnel and apply the principles that they learned to their design - they were also the first to really consider the problems of control and designed an engine with adequate power to weight ratio. Sure, if they hadn't done this then it would only have been a matter of time before someone else did - after all, all the technology necessary came together at about that time. But the fact remains that they WERE the ones to put it all together, and also prudently photographed their flights as proof. It may be that others beat them to it, but didn't take care to record their results or to publish them in a timely fashion - sorry, that's how history works. I believe the article as it stands actually gives excessive space to many of the other heroic failures in this story at the expense of the Wright's - to me that reflects a certain wistful patriotism on behalf of those nations who coulda/woulda/shoulda managed the deed, but for whatever reason didn't quite make it. Get over it - the Wrights were the ones that history recognises for this achivement and rightly so. Graham 06:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm not an American, in case you thought that - but I believe in credit where it's due. Graham 06:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From what I have read, the Wrights (including the Wright sister, in the early kite experiments) did much more than anyone else of that period to advance aviation. It is a shame that there was not someone else to handle business affairs so they could go on inventing. The rate at which they made progress is almost incredible. David R. Ingham 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This section has recently been added which I think at best is a badly worded, poorly spelt and grammatically incorrect. I think it serves no purpose in it's present form as it is almost unintelligible. I am not American and have no interest in an argument over which part of the world "considers" what, especially when there is no verifiable evidence provided.

"Santos Dumont is considered the inventor of the airplane for the most part of the World, where it is called Father of Aviation. The same he happens in the United States, where the Brothers Wright are called Fathers of Aviation also. Some people, however, criticize this heading, exactly that they support or the flights of the Brothers Wright or the flights of Santos Dumont as the first flights of an airplane. Such critics allege that other aviators had made its contributions to aviation much time before Santos Dumont and the Brothers Wright and that this heading correctly does not use no aviator particularly, including the Brothers Wright or Santos Dumont."

Please rewrite this in acceptable English and then work this into the existing text, not just lumping it on top of some other persons work.

--GeologyTom 09:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

They missed the effect of Reynolds number?
I think I read that the problems in 1901 or so were due to a wrong constant they used to scale up. That would mean that they were trying to include the Reynolds number effects in 1901 and succeeded in 1902. I don't see how they could have benefitted much from a small wind tunnel without it. David R. Ingham 15:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If they had not known about the Reynolds number effects at all, their surprise in 1901 would have been a pleasant one. They seem to have read of everything ever published about aerodynamics, with the help of Octave Chanute David R. Ingham 15:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Head wind
I think the opinion that the Wright brothers' first flight was not a true powered flight because they used a head wind is extremely far fetched. The airplane could take off in still air and did so later. The reason for the headwind was to avoid being killed if it crashed, by reducing the ground speed. Of course that is also why it was so slow. I don't think their credit can be diminished, as engineers, for being prudent about their own lives. Many other features were safety oriented. On a list of daredevils, they are far back in the pack; but they invented, not only the first airplane, but one that was safer than many that followed. David R. Ingham 04:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Santos Dumont
It´s impressive how you may believe in some pics taken by Wright´s employees of a glide shot by a catapult, in a private flight at their farm, supposedly some couple of years before the publication of them. If the creator of a glider shall be the father of aviation, let´s give the credits then to DaVinci. 201.6.253.247 18:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this entry at all. What does a catapult have to do with the Wrights or with Santos Dumont?  David R. Ingham 00:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats an easy one: Dumont´s "14 bis" aircraft is considered as the first airplane invented due to the fact that it was able to took off without beeing catapulted(like the Wright Brothers' aircrafts) or trown off higher points(like most of the other attempts). Due to this reason, Santos Dumont is considered the inventor of the Airplane in most of the non-english speaking countries such as Brazil, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Spain and their former colonies(French, Portuguese and Spanish) in Africa and Asia. Dumont is also considered to be the inventor of the airplane in most of South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay). --201.52.73.182 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the revert []. I think the article, as is, is unusually neutral, considering that the Wright's patent was upheld by the US patent office. Glenn Curtiss would certainly not have missed a foreign flight that might have voided the Wright's patent. David R. Ingham 02:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is understandable the the Santos Dumont supporters don't use as good English as the Wright Brothers supporters do. However the idea that the Wright brothers' plane did not take off on its own power can only be a confusion with Samuel Langley's attempt. David R. Ingham 03:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to dissapoint you, but the Wright brothers' aircraft took off with the aid of a ballista. It is documented. --201.52.73.182 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is impressive that they didn't know this. And where is the neutrality here? There is much more about Wright Brothers than Santos-Dumont in this article.

"there are more piston aircraft flying than any other type"
If we don't restrict ourselves to piloted aircraft, there are probably more rubber powered model airplanes than jet and piston aircraft combined.

Also shouldn't that be "internal combustion". Steam airplanes had pistons. David R. Ingham 05:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the writer really meant "airscrew driven" as opposed to jets. However, since that's probably obvious, perhaps the wording should be changed so it's not meant to sound surprising. Graham 05:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition to my fondness for rubber power, the point is that some other statistic like passenger miles might be more interesting. Why count the pilot to rule out rubber power, but refuse to multiply by the passengers or the distance, to come out ahead of jets? David R. Ingham 03:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree; it's a meaningless and uninteresting remark, made to sound like it's supposed to be significant. But as you probably know, 87% of all statistics are simply made up on the spot. Graham 11:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Flying Machines
I removed a huge block of bogus history. Sample below:

There are reference to flying machines in the temple carvings and in the ancient writings.

The images found on the ceiling beams of a 3000-year old New Kingdom Temple, located several hundred miles south of Cairo and the Giza Plateau, at Abydos resembles modern day aircraft.

Reference to ancient Indian flying vehicles comes from ancient Indian sources, many are the well known ancient Indian Epics, and there are literally hundreds of them. Most of them have not even been translated into English yet from the old sanskrit.

It is claimed that a few years ago, the Chinese discovered somesanskrit documents in Lhasa, Tibet and sent them to the University of Chandrigarh to be translated. Dr. Ruth Reyna of the University said recently that the documents contain directions for building interstellar spaceships!

Their method of propulsion, she said, was "anti-gravitational" and was based upon a system analogous to that of "laghima," the unknown power of the ego existing in man's physiological makeup, "a centrifugal force strong enough to counteract all gravitational pull."

According to Hindu Yogis, it is this "laghima" which enables a person to levitate. Dr. Reyna said that on board these machines, which were called "Astras" by the text, the ancient Indians could have sent a detachment of men onto any planet, according to the document, which is thought to be thousands of years old. The manuscripts were also said to reveal the secret of "antima"; "the cap of invisibility" and "garima"; "how to become as heavy as a mountain of lead."

...

The Indologist William Clarendon, who has written down a detailed description of the mercury vortex engine in his translation of Samaranga Sutradhara quotes thus ‘Inside the circular air frame, place the mercury-engine with its solar mercury boiler at the aircraft center. By means of the power latent in the heated mercury which sets the driving whirlwind in motion a man sitting inside may travel a great distance in a most marvelous manner.

Four strong mercury containers must be built into the interior structure. When these have been heated by fire through solar or other sources the vimana (aircraft) develops thunder-power through the mercury. It is also added that this success of an Indian scientist was not liked by the Imperial rulers. Warned by the British Government the Maharaja of Baroda stopped helping Talpade. His efforts to make known the greatness of Vedic Shastras was recognised by Indian scholars, who gave him the title of Vidya Prakash Pra-deep.


 * Anti-Gravity Studies

The Indian Emperor Ashoka started a "Secret Society of the Nine Unknown Men": great Indian scientists who were supposed to catalogue the many sciences. Ashoka kept their work secret because he was afraid that the advanced science catalogued by these men, culled from ancient Indian sources, would be used for the evil purpose of war, which Ashoka was strongly against, having been converted to Buddhism after defeating a rival army in a bloody battle. The "Nine Unknown Men" wrote a total of nine books, presumably one each.

...

It is interesting to note that when Alexander the Great invaded India more than two thousand years ago, his historians chronicled that at one point they were attacked by "flying, fiery shields" that dove at his army and frightened the cavalry. These "flying saucers" did not use any atomic bombs or beam weapons on Alexander's army however, perhaps out of benevolence, and Alexander went on to conquer India.

It is interesting to note, that the Nazis developed the first practical pulse-jet engines for their V-8 rocket "buzz bombs." Hitler and the Nazi staff were exceptionally interested in ancient India and Tibet and sent expeditions to both these places yearly, starting in the 30's, in order to gather esoteric evidence that they did so, and perhaps it was from these people that the Nazis gained some of their scientific information! According to the Dronaparva, part of the Mahabarata, and the Ramayana, one Vimana described was shaped like a sphere and born along at great speed on a mighty wind generated by mercury.

...

The after-affects of this Iron Thunderbolt have an ominously recognizable ring. Apparently, those killed by it were so burnt that their corpses were unidentifiable. The survivors fared little etter, as it caused their hair and nails to fall out. Perhaps the most disturbing and challenging, information about these allegedly mythical Vimanas in the ancient records is that there are some matter-of-fact records, describing how to build one. In their way, the instructions are quite precise. In the Sanskrit Samarangana Sutradhara, it is written: "Strong and durable must the body of the Vimana be made, like a great flying bird of light material. Inside one must put the mercury engine with its iron heating apparatus underneath. By means of the power latent in the mecrcury which sets the driving whirlwind in motion, a man sitting inside may travel a great distance in the sky. The movements of the Vimana are such that it can vertically ascend, vertically descend, move slanting forwards and backwards. With the help of the machines human beings can fly in the air and heavenly beings can come down to earth."

The Hakatha (Laws of the Babylonians) states quite unambiguously: "The privilege of operating a flying machine is great. The knowledge of flight is among the most ancient of our inheritances. A gift from 'those from upon high'. We received it from them as a means of saving many lives." More fantastic still is the information given in the ancient Chaldean work, The Sifrala, which contains over one hundred pages of technical details on building a flying machine. It contains words which translate as graphite rod, copper coils, crystal indicator, vibrating spheres, stable angles, etc.

Ancient Indian Aircraft Technology From The Anti-Gravity Handbook by D. Hatcher Childress Many researchers into the UFO enigma tend to overlook a very important fact. While it assumed that most flying saucers are of alien, or perhaps Governmental Military origin, another possible origin of UFOs is ancient India and Atlantis. What we know about ancient Indian flying vehicles comes from ancient Indian sources; written texts that have come down to us through the centuries. There is no doubt that most of these texts are authentic; many are the well known ancient Indian Epics themselves, and there are literally hundreds of them. Most of them have not even been translated into English yet from the old sanskrit.

Mark Foskey seems to have neglected to sign this.

Thanks Mark. If I looked at all, I didn't reat that stuff. It was all inserted at once, anonomously. David R. Ingham 08:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC) _______

A subset could address Aviation Historiography (the study of the recorded history of mechanical flight), which is extensive. Among current aviation historians are such folks as Walter Boyne, Richard P. Hallion, and Barrett Tillman in the US as well as Norman Franks and Christopher Shores in the UK. However, it might be difficult to say just when the recording of aviation history began, considering the narrow distinction between "today's headlines" and the close chronological relationship between, say, the Wrights and WW I (10 years).

Saqqara Bird
What about the "Saqqara Bird"? It's a new article on Wikipedia but worths a mention as it predates any other examples of early aviation. Aran|heru|nar 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Airships
I found the article very interesting. With today’s fuel problems would airships not be morepratical? Are there other reason apart from the public’s perception that prevent it being a viable option?Schnizzle 15:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

First Woman Aeroplane Passenger
"In late 1908, Madame Hart O. Berg became the first woman to fly when she flew with Wilbur Wright in Le Mans, France."

This is wrong. Mrs. Hart O. Berg was only the first American woman aeroplane passenger. The first woman aeroplane passenger was Thérèse Peltier on 8 July 1908 when she made a flight of 656 feet with Léon Delagrance in Milan, Italy. This is recognised by the Smithsonian here: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/women_aviators/therese_peltier.htm

Several other women had flown in unpowered heavier-than-air craft before this e.g. Dorothy Pilcher in a glider in 1897 and Lela Cody beneath a kite in 1902 (and many women had, of course, flown in lighter-than-air craft such as balloons).

I've added Thérèse Peltier and I've corrected Mrs Hart's entry. 217.205.243.42 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC) random passer-by. Re-signed as suggested Random Passer-by 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Mozhayskiy
Perhaps, we should mention Alexander Mozhayskiy in this article. Any thoughts on this? KNewman 08:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Gustave Whitehead
I replaced a demeaning word about GW with a suitably sized amount of facts. (Roger J.)

I wonder who started this wikipedia article, which is so unorganized and jumping back and forth between different subjects and times? I brought some order to it but it is still confusing. Too many sections about different stuff, and that allows very meagre information about each subject. Roger491127 (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC) $$Insert formula here$$

September 11th, 2001
I'm puzzled that there's not even a passing reference to the attacks - have I missed it or has it been discussed before? Given that the attacks resulted in the unprecedented grounding of aircraft in US airspace, I'd have thought there would be a link to the main article. Autarch (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

X-43?
''In 1967, the X-15 set the air speed record for an aircraft at 4,534 mph (7,297 km/h) or Mach 6.1 (7,297 km/h). Aside from vehicles designed to fly in outer space, this record still stands as the air speed record for powered flight. The X-43 got a higher speed record than that already, does the sentence mean manned'' powered flight? MythSearchertalk 20:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It used not to matter, since the X-15 was for a long time the fastest - manned or unmanned. But since the X-43 flight, I guess that has changed and the X-15 article should specify manned. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

First military use
As stated also in World_War_I_Aviation, the first operational use of the airplane for military purposes was in Libya during the Italo-Turkish war... who is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.229.172 (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Technology in the Golden Age
Near the start of the section on 1918 - 1939 (The "Golden Age") it says, "Aircraft evolved from being constructed of mostly wood and canvas to being constructed almost entirely of aluminum. Engine development proceeded apace, with engines moving from in-line water cooled gasoline engines to rotary and radial air cooled engines...". This is not correct. WWI aircraft were not usually covered in canvas, but in a lighter material referred to as "doped fabric" (ISTR that linen was usual, as cotton tore too easily). Also, rotary engines were already dying out by the end of the First War, and the radial engines which replaced them had hot competition from developments of the water-cooled inline engines that had lasted throughout the war - and would contiune on right through the next. But more related to the structure of the article is that this level of technical detail is not addressed elsewhere (except of course for the arrival of jet propulsion). So - should these technical remarks be chopped, mistakes and all, or should they be corrected and further remarks added to the rest of the article? My vote is to keep things simple and chop the technical stuff. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

not really NPOV, a suggestion.
to have a better NPOV, it would be great to add important note that explain that definition of first flight may differs (controled, distance, catapulted...) And then that's why many country claim prior invention of heir national hero. If we all agree on that, we must stop define wright bros as beeing the only one inventor, and stop using wright as reference everywhen in this article. all inventor (dumont, ader, wright...) should have equal exposure, with a description that show the difference (catapulted, crashed...). despite american school book (and hollywood) we must admit that even 100 year after people doest not agrees. and as there are no majority, this article is not NPOV. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.207.5 (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you about the NPOV of this article; however, I do think the Wright brothers section is too long and could edited to shorten it. Nowhere does this article say or suggest that the Wrights are the "only one inventor," as you incorrectly claim. The Wrights can properly be used as a "reference" point, because they verifiably succeeded in flying a controlled airplane before anyone else. DonFB (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Higher fuel efficiency of blended wing body aircraft
There are serious doubts about that. Aerodynamic studies show important stability problems and limited Cl max (there are no efficient flaps as for being a flying wing) leading to an excessive wing and wetted area. The internal transverse layout (passengers into the wing) presents pressurization problems (not round section), enormous security challenges in case of accident and bad level of comfort for lateral seats because of roll accelerations. Because of lower wing efficiency, the aircraft dimension to suit an important (and efficient) passengers capacity results in an excessive span according to standard airports layout. Till now, most efficient aircrafts are low weight twin engines conventionnal configurations. Plxdesi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plxdesi (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed "tone" tag
I have removed the "tone" tag placed on this article because no reason for its insertion was given on this page despite the tag stating "Specific concerns may be found on the talk page". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The specific concerns are far too many to list but include items such as:
 * "The dream of flight is illustrated in myths across the world "
 * "Humanity's desire to fly possibly first found expression in China"
 * "It was in Europe during the late 18th century that serious attempts at flight would first take place."
 * "Since then, aircraft designers have struggled to make their craft go faster, further, fly higher, and be controlled more easily"
 * "While his drawings exist and are deemed flightworthy in principle, he himself never flew in it. Based on his drawings, and using materials that would have been available to him, a prototype constructed in the late 20th century was shown to fly.[11] However, his sketchy design was interpreted with modern knowledge of aerodynamic principles, and whether his actual ideas would have flown is not known"
 * etc. etc.
 * Restoring "tone" template-- The Red Pen of Doom  21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

First powered flight in Britain
BBC did a special report 100 years ago 1908 flgiht made by an American pilot with a british built plane... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.190 (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Unreliable Source
I have removed information from this article drawn from or sourced from the paper "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu. This source is unreliable, as discussed on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Dialectric (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Passenger aircraft history
Coverage of the 1945-1991 period misses the massive social impact of passenger air travel; one source for expansion might be the Jet Age article. It's also unclear that the Cold War is the best or only lens through which to view this period. -- Beland (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Would someone like to check?
Back on Oxtober 5 these edits were made to the article. They puzzle me. Among them were:
 * "* useful load. First aircrafts were single seated, with just sufficient load for pilote and some fuel. While early efforts were hampered by the light loads carried, improved two-seat designs soon appeared that were entirely practical. At the end of the war, there was bombers and long range aircrafts.
 * "* Range and speed progression. To be developped."

which still exist. Anyone?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No comments. OK, out they go. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Female Russian WW II Pilots on Polikarkow Po-2 bombers
Could this be of interest for an article on aviation history? In 1942 the Soviet Union became the first nation to allow women to pilot war planes. They were highly successful, too, especially the 588th night bomber regiment. The Germans called them "Night Witches", the Russians called them "Stalin's Falks". They had 30 wooden, slow, highly maneuverable Polikarkow Po-2 bombers, flew 23.672 missions, dropped more than 100,000 bombs until November 1945. 23 night witches got the title "Hero of the Soviet Union". Here a SPIEGEL story on them, in German: http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/5522/stalins_himmelstuermerinnen.html Epsiloner (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Statistics
A graph or two showing the number of flights, passengers, etc. over time would be a nice addition to the article. -- Beland (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

William Samuel Henson & History
To my surprise, I did not find William Samuel Henson in the article, also Alphonse Pénaud doesn't seem to be listed. The first one designed the (concept of) the Aerial Steam Carriage and the second one made the Planophore. Stringfellow improved upon the Aerial Steam Carriage (which had almost all features of a true airplane, exept for the V-stance of the wings) by making it a triplane (thus having more lift from the wings). KVDP (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the progress in wing design is entirely not mentioned, aldough the contemporary wing wasn't perfected until fairly recently (1930's) See Talk:Wing & wing profile

Finally, perhaps hull design too can be mentioned. In the past, hull's were skinless frames (ie Wright Flyer), then they were given a linnen skin (Blériot IX), then a wooden skin (ie Avro Type F, then rigid wooden frames began to appear (no longer requiring a frame, ie the Deperdussin Monocoque Racer, ...) and finally, a completely metal skin appeared (Junkers J1)

KVDP (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Icarus image
I removed an artist's interpretation of Daedalus and Icarus because the artist portrayed them with angel wings. The myth was that the men used their arms to hold fabricated wings, not that they grew perfectly shaped angel wings (with white feathers) on their shoulder blades. There are better images of Icarus shown with the bird feathers melting off of the framework of his wings—one of those ought to be used. Binksternet (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a particular image in mind, feel free to replace it, I'd rather you didn't remove it without a replacement though. I skimmed through commons:Category:Icarus and didn't see any that depicted them that way (which I agree is correct) and are still easily recognizeable from a thumbnail. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see nothing than see an ill-conceived artist's interpretation, an artist who gets it absolutely wrong. Aviation is about human artifice, but the image shows some kind of organic wings that have grown from the mens' shoulders. The image is not suitable and not needed at all, not even to fill a supposed slot intended for Icarus. Our reader will be just fine without one, and better off than if they had to puzzle this one out. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I replaced the image with a better one. A Macedonian (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, much better. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

First Known Flight
Armen Firman, a Moor, made a partially successful flight c. 850 ad (although that may be better viewed as a parachute jump). Ibn Firnas, another Moor, made a flight c. 875. William of Malmesbury records a flight of 1 furlong (220 yards) as being made by an Anglo-Saxon monk named Eilmer c. 1000ad.

These flights also mean that da Vinci was not the first to seriously design an aircraft.

Perhaps this article should be modified to include these points. I see no reason to discount Malmesbury's account but, sadly, I have no knowledge of the primary sources for Firman and firnas.

"nearly impossible"
I don't like the new paragraph:

"Lilienthal knew that once an engine was attached to the plane it would be nearly impossible to further study the laws of aviation. The finding and describing of many of those laws were his greatest heritage to his successors, as they were able to construct their planes accordingly and thereby save themselves years of trial and error." Don't people study flight with powered airplanes now? Hadn't Penaud and Langley studied flight with powered models already? Didn't the Wright Brothers continue to make some progress after 1903? Lilienthal was not ready to use an engine, because his control method did not scale to larger aircraft and because he didn't know about or didn't follow the bridge engineer who had figured out how to build a strong biplane. David R. Ingham

Abbas Ibn Firnas
How can this article not discuss Abbas Ibn Firnas? Please add! 62.99.152.178 (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article mentions him in the subsection Gliders in Europe. ---Sluzzelin talk  17:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Whitehead details
How much detail should we devote to Whitehead, a guy thoroughly discredited by Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith? Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think what was there before the edits today is sufficient. There are other articles that can deal with the claims in detail. If we put details of this dispute here, then we'll have others wanting to add material on their choice for first flisght, including the Alberto Santos-Dumont proponents, and then that section will overwhelm this article. That's what the other articles that deal with the first flight issues are for. At this point, the user is edit warring, and at risk of being blocked by an admin. - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the Whitehead section is still a lot shorter than the Wright brothers section. Do you think there is far too much detail in that section too? You also say that the issue is in dispute. Yes, of course it is, because we all learned in school that the Wright brothers invented the airplane in 1903. But after studying the issue for two years I, and many others, think that this "truth" is in dispute. So I suggest we let the reader know enough to make up his own mind on this issue. Simply deleting the side you do not agree with is not a civilized way of handling historic issues.
 * Most of my edits in the Whitehead section are adding proper references to the statements.
 * Millions of people think that the Wright brothers invented the airplane in 1903, but millions of people think that Whitehead flew years before the Wright brothers. This controversy has even involved the politicians in Connecticut and North Carolina. This is not a dispute you simply can delete away. As I said before: let the reader know enough about both sides to make up his own mind on this issue. Simply deleting the side you do not agree with is not a civilized way of handling historic issues. Roger491127 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to Binksternet


 * "How much detail should we devote to Whitehead, a guy thoroughly discredited by Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith?"


 * Note that Orville Wright already 60 years ago thoroughly discredited Whitehead, saying that such a design could never fly. But several replicas of Whitehead's airplane have successfully flown, which makes Orville's view rather unimportant and faulty.


 * Remember also the failed centennial flight of a replica of Wright's Flyer I. That was probably embarrassing for Wright devotees.
 * Note also that Modern analysis by Professor Fred E. C. Culick and Henry R. Rex (1985) has demonstrated that the 1903 Wright Flyer was so unstable as to be almost unmanageable by anyone but the Wrights, who had trained themselves in the 1902 glider. so the stability and controllability of Flyer I has been thoroughly discredited by Professor Fred E. C. Culick and Henry R. Rex. So why should we put more trust in Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith than in Professor Fred E. C. Culick and Henry R. Rex?


 * Maybe this should remind us that when theory and reality conflict, reality is what is real. When the map and the terrain conflict, terrain is what is real. Roger491127 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Flyer was devilishly difficult to control, everyone agrees about this. However, it flew in 1903 because the Wrights trained on it for so long as a glider before they made a powered flight. The replicas of Whiteheads airplanes are suspect in their details—they include more than Whitehead put in them. The Whitehead section is shorter because his supposed flights are in great dispute. Wikipedia is not here to bring fringe ideas to the fore, bypassing mainstream ideas. Wikipedia is here to present mainstream ideas, with fringe topics presented as necessary, and in proportion. By proportion, Whitehead deserves one or two sentences. Binksternet (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The replicas blueprints were made with very advanced technology by very competent people, I quote:

"Today only a series of photographs of the aircraft N21 exists, fortunately enough clear, as well as some sketches. In addition there are also some testimonies of people who witnessed his exploits. Most interesting are those given by Weisskopf’s assistant, who had been interviewed on the purpose of history before he died. On these bases, with a patient and laborious engagement of several persons specialised in several fields, the reconstruction of the design drawings of his aircraft has been carried . A considerable contribution in this result has been supplied by Herb Kelly, an aeronautical engineer who, resuming a technical photographic methodology developed for the Pentagon (geometric method of fading angles) during the second world war, allows to analyse photographs for graphically obtaining synthetic images which can be further transformed into designs perspective. Developments deriving from such technique have been profitably carried out by means of the digital technologies and are today very popular also in the environment of automobiles crash analysis and of aircraft flight tests.

The initiative, conducted in tight collaboration with the Committee of Leutershausen, had been undertaken by a group of American technicians of several companies like Boeings, Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed. These constituted a group called " Hangar 21 "and in 1986 constructed a basic replica of N.21 which was presented at Oshkosh; they carried out only some leaps on the runway, but their work gave encouragement to the German committee to construct a more faithful replica. Without the technical contribution of this qualified group of specialists, very unlikely the faithful reconstruction of the aircraft would have been possible. The specialists experiences ranged from V2 to the nuclear submarines nevertheless they have been evidently fascinated by the romantic attraction of this adventure."

The only change that was made was to use modern motors with the same horsepower as Whitehead's motor, because acetylen plus compressed air (which releases oxygen-rich air first) is a very explosive and dangerous fuel. The pilots who tried the replicas should not have to risk their lives.

The over 25 witnesses, including an eyewitness journalist, plus the fact that very exact replicas have shown that the construction can fly gives us very good reason to give Whitehead at least 70% as much space as the Wright brothers. By the way, both Major O'Dwyer and Kosch investigated the journalist Dick Howell, read most of his articles and studied his drawings, and found him to be a very thruthful and accurate journalist, both in his writing and in his drawings. He later became chief editor of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald. Roger491127 (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If we compare the Wright airplane of 1908 with the Whitehead airplane of 1901 we find many similarities. Both airplanes could start without external help, like a catapult, they both could perform sustained flight, 260m is not sustained flight but 2.4km or 11km or more is sustained flight. They could both be controlled with precision, they could be landed exactly where the pilot chose to land and they could be landed without damage to the airplane and without risk for the pilot.

Differences: Wright's airplane did fly longer distances. Whitehead's airplane could land on water and could be driven like a car with the wings folded back. Whitehead's airplane was 7 years before the Wright brother's airplane. Roger491127 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But Wright's airplanes had big problems even long after 1908: The Signal Corps 1913 " In 1913 alone seven officers had died, bringing the total number of aviation fatalities since 1908 to eleven officers and one enlisted man. Half of the deaths had occurred in the Wright Model C. All six of the Model Cs purchased by the Army had crashed, and Lieutenant Lahm could count himself among the lucky few to have survived. While operating a Wright C at Fort Riley in 1912, Lieutenant Arnold had come so close to death that he swore to give up flying forever. The Wright planes in general had a tendency to nose dive: When they crashed, the engine often tore loose and fell upon the pilot or passenger. With its extra power, the Model C proved more hazardous than its predecessors.

The rapidly rising death toll among Army aviators led to an investigation into the situation. In its report, the board of inquiry condemned the Wright C as "dynamically unsuited for flying."

"The switch to tractor planes, in which the engine and propellers are in front of the wings and the pilot, did not meet with the approval of Loening's former employer: For several years Orville Wright refused to begin to manufacture this type of aircraft." Roger491127 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting aside the debate if he flew or not in aviation history Whitehead had really zero influence, he did not continue his experiments and had no influence on subsequent aviation history. The two sentences we have on Whitehead seem to be appropriate if not generous in an overview article about Aviation history. MilborneOne (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason popular american myths have been so dominating is that USA has dominated world media channels since 1945, when all other big powers where devastated and unable to spread their views. That USA is dominating world media is not a good reason why we should let american popular myths dominate wikipedia too. We should base our articles on what is based on verifiable sources. The Wright brothers have a reputation they definitely did not deserve. Their strange contraption, with front-mounted pitch controlling surfaces and rear-mounted propellers looks like no other airplane before it or after it, and that made it very difficult to control. Whitehead's plane looked a lot more like a normal airplane, with propellers front-mounted and pitch-stabilizing surfaces rear-mounted. And that is the reason why it was so stable in the air. Verifiable sources give us reasons to give it almost as much space as the Wright brothers. And if you want to talk about "influence on subsequent aviation history", may I remind you that the Wright brothers constant litigations and patent wars delayed and hindered the development of aviation in USA with so many years that during WWI practically all airplanes which were used in the war were built in Europe, not exactly a good reason too give the Wright brothers far more space than other early aviators. Roger491127 (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry is this a discussion about Whitehead not about Wright brothers this has nothing to do with how much "space" others have in the article. The Wright brothers influence on subsequent aviation history is well documented and referenced. If we to really measure importance then really Whitehead should only get a one sentence mention in other early flights part of the article so as I said Whitehead's two sentences are rather generous. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Replies to Milborne:

"Sorry is this a discussion about Whitehead not about Wright brothers this has nothing to do with how much "space" others have in the article."

This sentence contains two faults. This is a discussion about how much space we should give to each early aviator in relation to each other. So this discussion is about both Whitehead and Pearse and the Wright brothers and many others. And it definitely is about how much space we should allow for each entry. You say yourself "Whitehead should only get a one sentence", so you contradict yourself saying both that this is not about space, and then you say how much space Whitehead should get.

Quote: "The Wright brothers influence on subsequent aviation history is well documented and referenced."

Well, that is highly disputable. I have heard all kinds of judgements about their influence on the development of aviation. From the idea that they are the fathers of aviation, they started it all, without them we would still not know anything about airplanes, to the the idea that the Wright brothers were the main obstacle to the development of aviation in USA, with their eternal litigations and patent wars, and their very strangely designed airplane which contradicts everything we know about aerodynamics. Other aviators knew more about aerodynamics both before and after their strange contraptions which had aerodynamic properties like a barn door, and all kinds of judgements inbetween those two extremes. Note that as late as in 1913 their airplanes killed a lot of pilots and were condemned as "dynamically unsuited for flying." Roger491127 (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

From http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-pdwdR36GrEJ:www.angelfire.com/cantina/aerohistory/Chapter_4.ppt+airplane+production+1914+by+nation&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=se&client=opera

"United States – The U.S. entered the war two years after Italy, but was still unprepared interims of production and combat –ready aircraft." This web page shows that USA was far behind in production of airplanes as late as in 1916-1917. Difficult to understand if USA was the country in which the airplane was invented, unless you are aware of the delay in aviation development the Wright brothers caused. So "The Wright brothers influence on subsequent aviation history" is a big minus when it comes to giving them much space in this article. After considering all factors I suggest we give similar amounts of space to all early aviators so the reader gets enough information about each of them to judge each entry for himself. That is also how this article was organized to begin with, before some people started to try to limit some entries in a radical way. Roger491127 (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was to answer the question How much detail should we devote to Whitehead a general discussion on the Wright Brothers is not really related. Points have been made and they appears to be no concensus to change what we have. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Since no concensus has been reached, let's leave the section about Whitehead as it was before the discussion started about cutting it down to a few sentences. Roger491127 (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for including lots of details of Whitehead. He is a WP:Fringe character at most, and only gets a small mention for the curious. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Today only a series of photographs of the aircraft N21 exists, fortunately enough clear, as well as some sketches. In addition there are also some testimonies of people who witnessed his exploits. Most interesting are those given by Weisskopf’s assistant, who had been interviewed on the purpose of history before he died. On these bases, with a patient and laborious engagement of several persons specialised in several fields, the reconstruction of the design drawings of his aircraft has been carried. A considerable contribution in this result has been supplied by Herb Kelly, an aeronautical engineer who, resuming a technical photographic methodology developed for the Pentagon (geometric method of fading angles) during the second world war, allows to analyse photographs for graphically obtaining synthetic images which can be further transformed into designs perspective. Developments deriving from such technique have been profitably carried out by means of the digital technologies and are today very popular also in the environment of automobiles crash analysis and of aircraft flight tests.

The initiative, conducted in tight collaboration with the Committee of Leutershausen, had been undertaken by a group of American technicians of several companies like Boeings, Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed. These constituted a group called " Hangar 21 "and in 1986 constructed a basic replica of N.21 which was presented at Oshkosh; they carried out only some leaps on the runway, but their work gave encouragement to the German committee to construct a more faithful replica. Without the technical contribution of this qualified group of specialists, very unlikely the faithful reconstruction of the aircraft would have been possible. The specialists experiences ranged from V2 to the nuclear submarines nevertheless they have been evidently fascinated by the romantic attraction of this adventure."

Note the expertise of the very qualified specialists who helped reconstructing the dimensions and technical details of nr 21.

Binksternet's comment to this was: "They recreated blueprints, so those new blueprints are suspect." Binksternet

With that kind of reasoning practically all we know is suspect. Maybe Binksternet is a WP:Fringe character.

Anyway, we have between 25 and 45 eyewitnesses to Whitehead's flights, one of them a very reputable journalist who described a flight in the next issue of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald, and we have several replicas made after those experts blueprints and these replicas showed that Whitehead's airplane can fly.

Binksternet has promised to show some theoretical calculation by somebody who has been knighted for his expertise in the field of aviation which shows that Whitehead's airplane could not have flown. It is like the scientist who proved that that bumblebee can not fly, but yet, the bumblebee flies.

Anyway, wikipedia is not about what is truth or not, it is about what can be referenced to verifiable sources. And my latest version of the section about Whitehead has much more references to verifiable sources than the section about the Wright brothers which is a lot longer. Do you want me to start deleting everything in the section about the Wright brothers which is not properly referenced to verifiable sources or do you accept my latest version of the section about Whitehead? Roger491127 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Whitehead is a fringe character, and gets fringe weight. Trying to put as much about Whitehead into this article goes against WP:WEIGHT, no matter what new sources say. To make Whitehead's supposed flight not a fringe topic requires him being presented seriously in standard reference books on aviation history. What you see there is the Wright brothers, not Whitehead. That's our template. What we do is supply just enough information about Whitehead to let the reader know whether this is the guy they came to article to learn about, and if they want to learn more, they can click on a link to read his story. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Do a search on the internet and you will find that the interest in Whitehead has risen a lot in the last 20 years and it continues to grow. That fact motivates a more complete section about Whitehead than just a few sentences mixed with unproven weasel words and references to supposed experts who say that Whitehead could not have flown, but we do not even get to see the material Binksternet refers too. Binksternet seems to have his own agenda and he is making changes to wikipedia without even showing the material he refers to and uses as a reason to change the Whitehead section, which has been here for years, into a short misch-masch of weaselwords and unproven negative statements about Whitehead. Roger491127 (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not a British or US-American encyclopedia. If you, Binksternet, refers to a book which is only accessible in Britain you have to quote what this Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith has written in his book. We, the people who live in Sweden, India, France, Indonesia, Brazil and the rest of the world have no possibility to access the book you refer to. Roger491127 (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If we talk about WP:WEIGHT, note that the investigations into Whitehead and his airplanes conducted by Andy Kosch and Major O'Dwyer in the 1960s, which you deleted from the article, caused a clash between the highest political institutions in Connecticut and North Carolina. "In 1968 the state of Connecticut officially recognized Whitehead as "Father of Connecticut Aviation". That did not sit well with the North Carolina legislature, although its members took a few years until they expressed their displeasure:" quote from Gustave Whitehead.

That is one of the signs of the weight Whitehead should be given in this article. If he had been just a "fringe" figure, as you call him, he could not have caused such a clash between the legislature institutions in two states in USA. Roger491127 (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Our job of what weight to give Whitehead has been answered by aviation history books, books such as the one by Gibbs-Smith which cover the whole timeline, from gliders and balloons to rockets and jets. Trying get a sense of weight from a spat between two of fifty US states, or from TV shows about only one topic, is an impossible task. We Wikipedians cannot look to an observed increase in "interest in Whitehead" as a metric for his weight relative to other aviation pioneers. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wright brothers section
To Bilcat: I see you have deleted the Contributing to a more balanced view of the Wrights role in the history of aviation which I added. So you want to perpetuate the myth that the Wright bothers had an unblemished positive effect on the development of aviation in USA and the world. You want to hide the fact that their litigations and patent wars had a very detrimental effect on the development of aviation in USA. I thought wikipedia should give a well balanced view of each issue. Roger491127 (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the text you deleted from the section:

From The Wright brothers patent war: The Wrights' preoccupation with the legal issue hindered their development of new aircraft designs, and by 1911 Wright aircraft were inferior to those made by other firms in Europe The Wrights further restricted aviation progress in the United States by sticking doggedly to their basic design, despite the obvious advances being made in Europe. Improvements were made to the 1910 Model B, which had the elevator in the rear, wheels in place of skids, and did not require the tower-catapult for takeoff. The later Model C proved to be a man-killer; seven were purchased by the Army and five crashed, killing five men.''. Indeed, aviation development in the US was suppressed to such an extent that when the U.S. entered World War I no acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and the U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines.

Do you really think we should give such a onesided view of the Wrights contributions to the history of aviation, only write about their positive contribution and hide the other side of the coin, their very detrimental effect on the development of aviation in USA. Is that an honest and balanced view of the Wright brothers? Doesn't that way of editing clash with wikipedia rules about not being partial? Roger491127 (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wrights researched aerodynamics with their own wind tunnels, they researched lightweight construction methods, they researched gliding and they researched engine construction, finally fabricating their own engine. Their first flight is rightly accorded its place in history. Their successful flight catalyzed the world far greater than the earlier attempts. Everyone redoubled their efforts after they heard that the Wrights succeeded, and aviation as we know it "took off". There is no need to dump on them in this very basic summary article for being the target of many jealous persons who interrupted the Wright's business plans, nor is it appropriate to dump on them for not predicting right away that wing-warping would be a developmental cul-de-sac. Here, we give them their rightful due, and let the curious reader click on the links to read more. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Whitehead tethered his airplane to a pole and flew around in circles to test and refine the aerodynamic properties of his airplanes, that works just as well as a wind tunnel but allows the whole airplane to be tested. The Wrights used a much smaller wind tunnel which did not allow them to test a whole airplane, so their method was inferior. Others had also researched aerodynamics before them so that arguments isn't worth much.

Others, including Whitehead used lightweight construction too, so that argument falls.

Whitehead made much better and more lightweight motors years before the Wrights and got so many orders for motors that his daughter Rose remembers that she could hardly carry all the post from the mailbox into the house, and that Whitehead had to return most orders for motors. Somebody said that he could have become rich on motor manufacturing alone if he had been more businessminded.. So that argument falls too. Chanute mentioned Whitehead motors to the Wrights when they searched for a good lightweight motor.

"Their first flight is rightly accorded its place in history". 260m in a very unstable construction ending in "an unintended landing" which broke the front rudder is by no means something which "rightly accorded its place in history". It was a lot of luck and hard work by the pilot which allowed the plane to stay in the air for the pitiful stretch of 260m. So that argument falls too.

"Their successful flight catalyzed the world far greater than the earlier attempts." They kept it secret for many years, so it didn't catalyze anything.

"There is no need to dump on them in this very basic summary article". Shouldn't even a very basic article sum up their total effect on the development of aviation in USA correctly?

"let the curious reader click on the links to read more" So why not include the link to the wikipedia article The Wright brothers patent war

Note also that others, like Lilienthal, had researched the field of aerodynamics many years earlier the the Wrights and the brothers had obviously learned very little from earlier research and from their own research, because they built a very aerodynamically bad construction and doggedly stuck to it even after it had killed many pilots and had been judged dynamically unsuited for flying. Note that their thin flat wings were suitable for speeds over 100kmph, speeds they never reached, that is one of the factors which made their construction so unstable. Another factor was a front-mounted pitch rudder, a so stupid idea that it has not been seen on any propeller airplane before or after it.

Note that Whitehead's airplane with its curved wings and rear-mounted pitch stabilizer and tractor propellers was a much more sound construction and it was very very stable in the air. It did not need constant corrections of the attitude in the air, it was landed just by turning the motor off and it landed itself, safely and softly without damage to the airplane or the pilot.

On the whole, your defense of the Wright brothers here is a soup of bad arguments and does by no means justify your action of deleting the part of the text which gives a more balanced view of the Wrights total contribution to the field of aviation. Roger491127 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

From Aviation in World War I

The French military aviation exercises of 1911, 1912, and 1913 had pioneered cooperation with the cavalry (reconnaissance) and artillery (spotting), but the momentum was if anything slacking. Great Britain had "started late" and initially relied largely on the French aircraft industry, especially for aircraft engines. The initial British contribution to the total allied airwar effort in August 1914 (of about 184 aircraft) was three squadrons with about 30 serviceable machines. The US army and navy air services were hopelessly behind, even in 1917, when the United States entered the war, they were to be almost totally dependent on the French and British aircraft industries for combat aircraft.

How could USA where allegedly the airplane was invented in 1903 be so hopelessly behind in production of airplanes, even as late as in 1917? Roger491127 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Any conjecture by us about why the US fell so far behind will be exactly that: conjecture. The article stands on mainstream references. Which mainstream references do you see that give Whitehead a prominent place in aviation history, unseating the Wrights? I can point to scores that do not. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to give Whitehead a prominent place in aviation history, because he did not have a prominent place in aviation history. I am just trying to state the facts referenced verifiable sources say about him. And if he really built and flew a very stable, aerodynamically correct airplane 7 or more years before the Wright brothers could achieve a similar feat he definitely deserves more than a few sentences in an encyclopedia.

If he did not fly, as your academic author say he couldn't have, how do you and that author you refer to explain the 30-45 witnesses who under oath said they saw him fly? How do you explain the article by Dick Howell, who according to both Major O'Dwyer and Andy Kosch was a very truthful and accurate journalist?

Do you and the author you refer to think it must have been a gigantic conspiration? A very strange conspiration in that case, because 20 of the conspiring witnesses did not say anything publicly until they were approached and questioned by Stella Randolph in the 1930s, and 20 more conspiring witnesses waited until they were nearly dead and were approached and questioned by Major O'Dwyer and other members of CAHA (Connecticut Aviation Historical Assocation) in the 1960s to fulfill this carefully planned conspiration and lie to the people who searched for them all over USA and questioned them. Roger491127 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I also want wikipedia to give the reader a full understanding of the Wright brothers contribution to the development of aviation, both the good sides and the bad sides of their contribution. Roger491127 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)