Talk:Langley Aerodrome

Imperial/metric system
Different units are confusing. Over 5000 feet? 5000 feet is 0.946969697 miles! So for the sake of readability, I'm just changing that into "almost a mile". I figure it's a safe assumption that if it had flown more than a mile they would have said so. I don't have any of the referenced books to look up how much it was exactly. And I'm adding some metric units since I have trouble measuring things in body parts like feet or thumbs. If somebody has more precise info on this, please share. W3ird N3rd (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "After a series of unsuccessful tests beginning in 1894, Langley's unmanned steam-driven model "number 5" made a successful 90-second flight of over half a mile at about 25 miles an hour at a height of 80 to 100 feet on May 6, 1896. In November model "number six" flew more than 5,000 feet."

Control system
Hello,. Let's try to come to agreement about the issue of control on the Aerodrome. You'll notice that in my edit which you reverted I added a new reference to the article, a citation to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, which I hope you'll agree is a solidly reliable source, as Wikipedia uses that phrase. Of course, you're correct that Manly would likely have been essentially a mere passenger, not a true pilot, on the Aerodrome, if it had actually flown. In the reference that I added you will see that the Smithsonian itself refers to a "control system." Here is a relevant portion quoted from that reference:
 * "The control system was minimal and was also poorly conceived. The tail moved only in the vertical plane, and acted more like a modern trim tab to stabilize the flight path, rather than as an elevator for positive pitch control inputs. There was a separate rudder, but it was mounted centrally on the airplane, the position where it would be least effective. Even Langley and Manly recognized the limitations of this control arrangement, and they planned to revise it after simple straight-line flight was achieved."

I believe that passage, which perhaps you haven't read, answers your Edit Summary question: "What controls? It had the same 'primitive control' system as the smaller unmanned versions so what sort of 'primitive controls' would he have been attempting to operate?" My edit also added some new information about development of the Aerodrome: namely the construction and flights of the quarter-size model. My edit also added information about Langley blaming the launch mechanism for the Aerodrome failures. I also did some copyediting, including revision of the phrase "floating catapults," which is a little misleading and not really an accurate description of the single houseboat with a catapult on top. Unfortunately, all that new and updated information--along with the new reference--was lost after your reversion, which you based upon a disagreement about the issue of control, but not about the new information and the new reference. As the article stood before my edit, it gave very short shrift to development of the full-size Aerodrome. My edit was an effort to put a little more flesh on the bones of that story. By no means do I consider my edit to have added everything that needs to be added to the story. The article at present is somewhat threadbare and thinly referenced, and it will benefit from the addition of more information and more references. I did not see a reason given in your reversion for removing the Smithsonian reference that I added, which I believe contributes meaningfully to this article. Accordingly, I will be restoring that reference and information based upon it. I'll look forward to your thoughts about the article. DonFB (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * After reading your explanation I reverted my own revert, but am not entirely sure that I should have. I didn't cite a source because I didn't get my information from some obscure site, I got it from the first article on the subject that Google takes me to, other than the Wikipedia entry. It states "Samuel Langley's successful flights of his model Aerodromes Number 5 and Number 6 in 1896 led to plans to build a full-sized, human-carrying airplane. Langley's simple approach was merely to scale up the unpiloted Aerodromes to human-carrying proportions. This would prove to be a grave error, as the aerodynamics, structural design, and control system of the smaller aircraft were not adaptable to a full-sized version." It seems reasonable to assume that any control system that an unmanned aircraft in those days would have had would have been no control system at all. I have read quite a bit about the subject, not just what I got from the information that I quoted, and all accounts describe a flight that, even if successful, Manly would have had no control over, that he would not have had any role in deciding when and where to land. Langley might as well have loaded some sandbags equal to Manly's weight and not risk a real life. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Glad that you unreverted. Interesting that the text you quoted is from the same Smithsonian article I added as a reference. I agree with your opinion that Manly probably would not have had any real control over the machine if it flew. I would say the important issue here is that, even if it is reasonable to assume something about a subject, we can only include what reliable sources actually say about the subject. DonFB (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)