Talk:Wright brothers/Archive 1

@For the sake of equality...
In the article about Santos Dumont, there is a explicitly referred section named "Controversy vis-a-vis Wright brothers".

Well, as the matter is so polemic, I think — better: I am sure of this — that, for the sake of equal scientific treatment, here simply equality, there must be an equal or, minus, equivalent section in this article versing about Wright brothers, don't you?

EgídioCampos, 2006.12.16, 20:40 UTC.

Vandalism
I took out the intro some one made about the brothers being "gay"; how ever I think I removed something by accident as I cant viez the article on my pc. Sorry just trying to help.

First discussions
What about Santos Dumont? You are misleading people. The Wright Brothers are not generally accepted for design and construction of a "workable" aircraft. Please add "Generally accepted by the North Americans". You must correct this article if you would like have credit as a sound resource of good information in Brazil.
 * I'm brazilian and say that the same arguments of the Brazilians are contested in America and sets of ten of other countries (Europe also). I think, after everything what I read and saw in Brazilian TV it's pure nationalism and pride. --Brazil4Linux 02:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

--

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I did it. Thanks for the encouragement!


 * Also please read "The Papers of Wilbur & Orville Wright" edited by the late Marvin McFarland c.1950. They are two bound books parts 1 & 2 with letters and correspondences by the Wrights in their own hand.

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


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


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

--

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

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

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

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

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

Tannin 13:21, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


 * The fact there are dozens of other who claims for that should invalidate everything ? strange..
 * But ok, I don't know, I just read this article, it started like they were invent planes.. and finaly it's not sure. I just wanted to show you this inconsistancy, I'm not an expert. obfuscations are not clever and not recommanded in encyclopdia. If it impossible to establish who invent planes, just say it. whatever they will be consider as inventor for most of people (mass) we don't need to relay non-reliable information. (if it is)
 * your advice ? /fab/


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


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


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


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

There was a whole television program on (I think) the History Channel about the Wright's claim, and the fact that giving the original Flyer to the Smithsonian was linked to a secret agreement that they would always be given the credit for inventing the airplane/aeroplane. There were several people who "flew" at various dates and with varying levels of success. Who was "first" depends on your definition of "flew" and is fairly arbitrary. Like most inventions, it was not the work of one man (or two men) but was the result of on-going human research. See also the invention of the light bulb! To give everybody a fair shake, I think an encyclopedia should just list what they all did and when. Anjouli 18:41, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree with you.
 * I think we can write something like "one of the inventor of airplane" with a link that just explain :"as it's difficult to establish who's the inventor of plan (depending on arbitrary definition of 'flight'..and so on..)" and maybe,with a list of each idea/feature they give to make this dream possible.
 * it's a suggestion, don't you this it's NPOV ? /fab/


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

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

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


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


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


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


 * Tannin 11:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

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


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

Oh come on! The reason they are considerred to be the first are three very different reasons:
 * 1) Documentation. They had their first flight photographed and they also kept a good record of what they did.
 * 2) The were commercially sucessull. Early on the military became interested in the use of aircrafts for military use.
 * 3) They were americans. National pride play an important part. just check how many poeple who think ENIAC was the first computer and not, for instance the Z3.

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

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

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

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

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


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

Links to others who claim to be the first"
Seems reasonable to me to link to the most common claims. The argument that other articles do this already seems weak to me. We needn't dwell on it here, providing a short list seems like a sensible thing to do. I'm sure I read some principle that duplication by summary is seen as a good thing on Wikipedia. Surely that extends as far as a few links. Ben Arnold 04:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Having a link to all the earlier benchmarks and claims is enough. I try and rewrite the first to be more clear in any case. Greyengine5 15:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Bias complaint by 210.50.244.152
wow to my sup rise i found a heap of we are right because we say so arguments with a heap of large words thrown in to make me sound smart and correct.if the Wright brothers had of just Acknowledge everyone else we wouldnt have this problem. Basicly they put a engine in a plane and patent it.


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


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

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


 * Actually, it's more likely that no one outside of the US would take an encyclopedia seriously that did not allow for alternate views on the Wright brothers. Removing counter claims is just pushing a single POV.  An encyclopedia, especially an international one like Wikipedia, has a responsibility to present all widely held views evenly.  --A D Monroe III 7 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of coverage of counter-claims in the Earlier and later flying craft section. This doesn't belong in the opening paragraph.  --Rogerd July 7, 2005 01:00 (UTC)
 * For balance, it must go in the same paragraph as "credited with the design and construction of the first practical aeroplane", which is the opening paragraph. The only reason not to put it there, or to hide it somewhere lower down the article, is POV bias.  --A D Monroe III 7 July 2005 02:25 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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

Monroe,

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Why all this sensitivity about the fact that the Wright Brothers wasn´t the first to fly? This honor goes instead to the frenchman Clément Ader. Just because it all started with a lie (the Wright Brothers claim) there´s nothing that says that this mistake cannot be corrected. GET OVER IT!!!
 * I must agree with this last comment. It is indeed Clément Ader who is the first in history that managed to have a machine "heavier than air" take off from the ground for a few seconds in 1890. As for the insistance by Brazilians that it is Santos-Dumont and not the Wright Brothers that is the first to have flown an aircraft, I don't quite understand that Brazilian sensitivity. Santos-Dumont was born in Brazil, but that's about his only connection with Brazil really. Santos-Dumont actually lived in Paris, spoke French, and all his flights were made in the suburbs of Paris, on aircrafts built by French technicians and assistants. His famous aircraft was called Oiseau de Proie, which is French for "bird of prey". In any case, I have never heard anyone in France claiming that Santos-Dumont was the first to fly a plane. What I have always heard is that Clément Ader is the first to have flown a machine heavier than air, while the Wright Brothers are the first to have flown a machine similar in concept to the planes we fly now (i.e. flat fixed wings, instead of the curved mobile wings of Ader). Clément Ader is also the one who coined to word avion (i.e. "airplane") in French, a word then borrowed in Spanish, Portuguese, and many other languages. A derivative of avion is the word aviation, which was borrowed in English. So Ader certainly deserves a note. Hardouin 19:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

also I'm from New Zealand and we have proof that Richard perse was the first to fly in a motorised plane 9 months before the wright brothers made their "plane". User:jimmie pies
 * talk is cheap; cite your proof David 03:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Try doing a google search on richard pearse and see what it comes up with, also you don't have to be so rude about it. user:jimmie pies

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

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

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

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

The first flight of an aircraft was made in 1906 by Santos-Dumont. It's undisputable.
 * But it is disputed; after all, an airplane, even the most advanced one, is technologically just a powered glider. Please read NPOV.  The article that discusses these claims in depth is First flying machine.--Pharos 20:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The flyer didn't use a catapult and had its own engine. Is the only difference, between it and the plane that Sanots-Dumont used, is that the Wright Brothers flew at a place with a lot wind? And couldn't they have probably still taken off without the wind?


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


 * Don I dont know if you watched the recent NOVA/PBS program "Wings of Madness" which is the title of a book by one of the interviewees on the program. I usually respect PBS/Nova but they were wrong about saying Santos-Dumont was forgotten or that the airplane was his invention. Being an aviation buff those of us who may study pioneer flight always have given Santos his props. He has never been forgotten by pioneer buffs and is always in the writings of flight when chronology comes up. Towards the end of the NOVA program they actually called out the airplane as Santos's invention. Santos was a great pioneer, like Glenn Curtiss. Both are undeserving of this controversy in memory of their names. Great pioneers the both of them. But they did not invent the airplane. That honor solely belongs to Wilbur & Orville Wright.


 * I didn't see the TV show, but did watch a 2-minute preview on the internet. I agree that people who know something about early aviation have not forgotten Santos, but the general public is pretty much unaware of him. I'll have to read the Nova script; I'd be interested knowing exactly what it says about Santos as "inventor" of the airplane. The Nova website says transcripts are usually posted a few weeks after the show airs. I did have my eyes opened when I came to Wikipedia and discovered the fierce controversy that surrounds the WB and SD. DonFB 02:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Transcripts are now up(11-11-06). Transcripts here --> www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3316_santos.html Towards the end, the program dramatizes ASD as saying: "I never thought my invention would cause bloodshed between brothers. What have I done?" Santos speaking during a point in WW1. There is at least one other instance in the production where "my/his invention" is used. But didn't peruse the whole transcript. I actually taped the show though.

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


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

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

Probably not a bicycle chain
I hate to nitpick but. ..

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

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

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

- Jed


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Opening sentence
I propose the following rewording of the opening sentence:

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

Copyright insanity - removing a 1909 photo
Someone or something (person or robot) removed a photo from this article, with the following comment:


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

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

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


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


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


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


 * Pride commeth... The image that I thought I'd saved was deleted anyway.  I'm checking on it... -- Mwanner | Talk 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it turns out that a., I apparently hit Preview but not Save on my attempt to add the PD-US tag, and b., the source for the image was a dead link, so it would have been deleted eventually anyway. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The image is in the collection of Wright State University, which says permission should be requested to use the picture. The image online can be viewed at the OhioLINK Digital Media Center at this address -- http://worlddmc.ohiolink.edu/History/Previews?oid=1147700&asset=1147700&format=list&results=6&sort=title&collection=all&year=any&searchstatus=1&hits=125&count=52&p=1&searchmark=0&viewno=0  -- The information page which says permission should be requested is at this address --  http://worlddmc.ohiolink.edu/History/Details?oid=1147700   --  Wright-brothers.org (which may be identical to the apparently defunct First-to-Fly.com) has the picture at --  http://www.wright-brothers.org/History%20Images/1906-1909/1909%20Flyer%20and%20Derrick%20Pau.jpg   4.228.111.157 07:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)  -- DonFB


 * Thanks. I have put in a request to the Wright State people (in part just to see on what basis the claim copyright on what appears to be a PD image).  We could always use the second source.  -- Mwanner | Talk 17:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK-- the Wright Library wanted a use fee. Not that they have a legal right to impose such a fee, but rather than argue, I have uploaded the image from the www.wright-brothers.org address. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you so much for your attention.
 * Hey, it's Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can update! You could have done this yourself!!  But I will add it.  David 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


 * The Wrights set gliding records every day at Kitty Hawk in 1902. They routinely went over 550 feet, and the record was 622.5 feet in 26 seconds. [Crouch, p. 240] They flew in control with relative safety, whereas Lilienthal was always in great peril.


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

Wind tunnel replica
Added a photo of the replica of the Wright Brothers' wind tunnel at the Virginia Air and Space Center because I figured the article could benefit from such a visual. Axda0002 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Patent section - sources?
I wonder if someone who knows where it came from can put source pointers into the part of the article that deals with the patent war - it seems somewhat inconsistent with the page I found about it. I'm particularly interested in whether the patent battle between the Wright brothers and Curtiss involved patents held by Curtiss, and whether the establishment of the patent pool for WWI was an industry response or a government mandate - it's being cited routinely as an example of the dangers of unbridled patenting in debates about the patent system, so I'd like to make sure I've got the sources right.... --Alvestrand 09:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wrote the Patent War section, based on Crouch's "The Bishop's Boys" pages 466-467: "With American entry into World War I in April 1917, the government took steps to resolve the entire patent mess. Representatives of the concerned companies formed a Manufacturers Aircraft Association...the members of the new organization entered into cross-licensing agreements permitting a member firm use of the patented technology after payment of a blanket fee...the principal patent holders, Wright-Martin and Curtiss, resolved their differences and received $2 million each." Crouch only says the government "took steps," so the nature of the "mandate" is not explicitly clear in his explanation. My understanding of the affair is that the Wright 1906 "grandfather" airplane patent was the core issue. By the time the patent pool was formed, the Curtiss company may have been suing other parties (but I don't know if that included the Wright successor company) for infringing its patents. I'm not sure what inconsistencies you find with the Centennial of Flight essay.  DonFB 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This page suffered great vandalism, the intro was about them being gay. I removed it; but I think I accidently removed some code as I cant view it well on my PC.

Split?
There appears to be an Article size issue with this page, so I would suggest splitting it into seperate pages about each of the brothers. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 18:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Morphh - I think the scope of a topic justifies the added reading time.  If anything, I wouldn't split on each brother but something closer to Summary Style in regard to their flight.  However, I feel the size is fine and wouldn't change it at this point. Morphh 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. 90% of content would be duplicated, and it would be harder to get the whole story. --Alvestrand 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose.  The brothers accomplishments were accomplished together.David 00:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Reasons as above. If it absolutely, positively must be split (and there is no good reason to insist on that as yet) then split into cronological parts - early life and then later life. Tannin 10:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose  Agree with all the reasons above. Of note, Wr.Brothers are 49k, as shown in the article edit window; Da Vinci is 44, Newton 51, Galileo 43, Caesar 56, Columbus 65, Gandhi 69, Tesla 72, Elvis 75, GW Bush 89, Lincoln 90, Einstein 95, and Edison checks in at an incredibly svelte 34 (Tesla would smirk).   DonFB 07:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose They are vastly more signficant together. -- User:Imjustmatthew Who's to lazy to login in a friend's computer.
 * 7) Oppose. Use Summary Style to address length issues. Kaldari 03:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. No. No, no, no. Cribcage 03:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose I don't know how you can talk about one without the other. Even though Orville live many years after Wilbur's death, he did very little notable during those years.  --rogerd 03:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) oppose they are famous as the "wright brothers" not as indivuduals Bilbo B 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose they do belong together, so we should double the normal allowance. It may be useful to have more info on Orville's life after Wilbur's death, and this may be appropraite for a separate linked article.Dhaluza 03:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Wright brothers
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  19:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

bad stuff has been happening
some one is erasing all the wright brothers articals. I am mad.

kyle heller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.102.16.178 (talk • contribs)

Fédération Aéronautique Internationale ?
Fédération Aéronautique Internationale is actually the world air sports federation. I think its citation in the opening of the article suggests that it's the sole authority when it comes to aviation, but that's a bit misleading (?) Hakluyt bean 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting issue. I'm not the editor who included the sentence you mention, but some months ago, I found a link that successfully directed me to an FAI web page that cited the Wright brothers as having made the first powered, controlled, manned flight, or words to that effect. Unfortunately, I can't find that link now. Furthermore, I have tried repeatedly to find that same FAI page by using navigation tools on the FAI website and have never found it. I don't think there is really any dispute that the FAI is the world's "official" organization that certifies aviation records, even if they use the phrase "World Air Sports Federation". Their "about" page includes this sentence,"FAI activities include the establishment of rules for the control and certification of world aeronautical and astronautical records." They and predecessor organizations have been doing it since 1905. However, since their reputed citation of the Wright brothers seems to be missing from their website (or buried so deep it can't be found), I think it may be appropriate to flag the sentence in question with "citation needed". DonFB 03:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Milestones
I have been considering removing this section; now seems a good time, in light of the recent argumentative "additions" to this section. This article is a biography of the Wright brothers, not a debating forum for people to grind POV axes about the merits of their achievements. This section does not add to encyclopedic knowledge of what the Wright brothers accomplished. The article already contains a section on competing claims. There is also a separate article, "First Flying Machine," referenced in the introduction, for discussion of competing aviation claims. The Wright-Ferber letter, in particular, lacks a neutral source. Currently, its source is a Brazilian-based hyperbolically biased web article. I have previously requested an authoritative citation for the passage, but none was offered. It would be more encyclopedic--and worthwhile--to cover the many interesting factual twists and turns in the Wright biography, than to bloat the article splitting hairs over their achievement. It might be a good idea for someone to create an entirely new article for such a debate, with a link from this article; a possible title, "Significance of the Wright Brothers Flight". DonFB 02:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Has germans invented the second plane
In the popular german newspaper "Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung" was written about a flying show or something other (I don´t know) at Hanover International Airport. Th cockey have showed a copy of the real first airplane, and that was an invention of a German man from Lower Saxony and NOT an invention of Wright brothers! I don´t know if this story ist true, but I´ve read it!


 * Would that perhaps be Gustave Whitehead? The problem is that it lacks documentation. // Liftarn

I don´t know, but it can be... --91.15.247.22 15:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Whitehead and Jatho are the real pioneers:

http://www.karl-jatho.com/html/we_were_the_first.html

And do not forget about Clément Ader. He flew in 1890!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cl%C3%A9ment_Ader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.253.154 (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

John Stringfellow flew in 1848 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.164.41 (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Katey Wright
I am disappointed that there is no mention of Katherine Wright, sister of Orville and Wilbur. Her contribution was not minor, although it was not technical. She worked as a schoolteacher and kept the household functioning, allowing the unmarried brothers to concentrate on their bicycle shop and aviation experiments. When the three Wrights travelled to Europe to demonstrate their machine, she made such a positive impression on many with her grace and diplomacy thatjust joking the whole thing is a lie --Cathy

About the "third Wright brother"
Full reason to you, naturally, Caty! Once they worked as an synergic family team, why there were no mention about her, meritum causae?

'''EgídioCampos, 2006.12.31, 21:35 UTC' HI, CATY! ''' (the blue and red colors meet for an honorific aim to your dear country, USA)
 * I am a brazilian wikipedian wishing to wiki-talk with an american one. As the present matter belongs to my most important issues, I want to know if it's possible to you corresponding with me... about this and — eventually — others themes.
 * So, post me an answer, here or on my talk page!
 * Success to you!
 * Success to you!


 * EgídioCampos, 2007.02.01, 19:00 UTC.

Guardian Sysop,
 * The small editions by fifteen or twenty --173.68.73.106 (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)minutes ago were notvandalism action. They were intented by me for the sake of correction, only corretion: I had wrote "Caty" instead of "Cathy", the correct form. So the purpose of that action was well-intentioned!
 * If possible to you, can you do it for me (only change "Caty" by "Cathy"). I think — better — I am sure she will agree and like this!
 * Thanks!
 * Thanks!


 * EgídioCampos, 2007.02.01, 19:20 UTC.


 * ►►► HI, CATHY!  (the blue and red colors meet for an honorific aim to your dear country, USA)
 * Once a time more!...
 * Since the above vigilant guardian sysop (I understand such vigilance!...) has reverted my intended corrections — only corrections!... — and, requested to him by me, but not provided however — I am renewing that issue, exposed as follows...:
 * Since the above vigilant guardian sysop (I understand such vigilance!...) has reverted my intended corrections — only corrections!... — and, requested to him by me, but not provided however — I am renewing that issue, exposed as follows...:
 * Since the above vigilant guardian sysop (I understand such vigilance!...) has reverted my intended corrections — only corrections!... — and, requested to him by me, but not provided however — I am renewing that issue, exposed as follows...:

Thomas edison is so smart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.204.219 (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a brazilian wikipedian wishing to wiki-talk with an american one. As the present matter belongs to my most important issues, I want to know if it's possible to you corresponding with me... about this and — eventually — others themes.
 * So, post me an answer, here or on my talk page!
 * Best regards and success to you!
 * Best regards and success to you!


 * EgídioCampos, 2007.02.02, 15:45 UTC.

Mrs. Hart O. Berg
"On October 7 Mrs. Hart O. Berg (Edith), the wife of the brothers' European business agent, became the first woman airplane passenger when she flew with Wilbur."

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

I know this is a controversial article and I'm only a random passer-by but I've corrected the factual historical error by adding the word "American".217.205.242.72 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC) ranom passer-by. Re-signed as suggested Random Passer-by 16:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've altered Delagrange's name from the odd Smithsonian spelling "Delagrance" to the more usual spelling "Delagrange". Random Passer-by 00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some historians don't consider Madame Therese Peltier's flight with Delagrange a true flight because Delagrange's Voisin lacked lateral control(meaning no banking turns) and this rendered it not a true airplane such as the Wright Flyer. So 'technically' Mrs Berg IS the first woman to fly in some historians' views in a fully controllable airplane.Koplimek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ZZ@For the sake of equality...
In the article about Santos Dumont, there is a explicitly referred section named "Controversy vis-a-vis Wright brothers".

Well, as the matter is so polemic, I think — better: I am sure of this — that, for the sake of equal scientific treatment, here simply equality, there must be an equal or, minus, equivalent section in this article versing about Wright brothers, don't you?

EgídioCampos, 2006.12.18, 21:55 UTC.

Here, the text about "the so called controversy"...
Well, as no one makes mention about the requested inclusion, I present it here for suggesting that necessary providency.


 * Controversy vis-a-vis Santos Dumont (as regarded new text)

''Editors’ Note: The claim to the first flying machine is still the arena for disputes about definitions, facts, and merits. These polemics are often fueled by strong nationalistic or cultural feelings. The editors of this article have made a sincere effort over time to present a Neutral Point of View. Despite this effort, disagreements persist. The reader is invited to read this section critically, with particular awareness of possibly biased language which might favor one of the many points of view.''

In some countries, particularly Brazil and France, Santos-Dumont is considered to be the inventor of the airplane, because of the official and public character of the 14-bisflight as well as some technical points (see below.) This has been traditionally the official position of the Brazilian government, especially since the Getúlio Vargasdictatorship. Vargas instituted a department within his government for "Information and Propaganda", following the trend in many other countries. This department created schoolbooks praising all things Brazilian; when the Vargas dictatorship ended in 1945, the department-influenced schoolbooks endured.

The strongest technical criticism of the Wrights' early aircraft is that, while it is clear that these aircraft could sustain controlled flight, they always used some sort of assistance to become airborne. The assistance ranged in form from requiring a stiff headwind, the use of launch rails, and/or the use of external thrust (a catapult) to obtain the necessary airspeed for launch. As such, none of the Wrights' early craft took off under their own power in calm wind from an ordinary ground surface as was achieved by the flights of the 14-bis.

In some other countries, particularly the United States, the honour of first effective heavier-than-air flight is most frequently assigned to the Wright brothers for their flight of 39 meters (120 feet) in 12 seconds on 17 December 1903 at Kitty Hawk in North Carolina. Nonetheless, even in these nations there remains a high regard for Santos-Dumont's accomplishments, and a recognition of the 14-bis flight as an important event in early aviation.

Supporters of the Wrights' claim point out that the use of ground rails in particular was necessitated by the Wrights' choice of airfields -- the sand at Kitty Hawk and the rough pasture at Huffman prairie -- rather than the relatively smooth and firm parkland available to Santos-Dumont and was not a reflection of any aerodynamic weakness in their design. Accordingly, the catapult used at Huffman Prairie allowed the use of a relatively short ground rail thus avoiding the time-consuming drudgery of positioning hundreds of feet of rail needed for launches without a catapult.

Supporters of the Wright Flyer claim also point out that 1) although a stiff head wind was required, the aircraft moved under its own power; 2) the Wrights were the first to develop effective aircraft control, which made practical flight possible, even in breezy or windy conditions which are common, as well as in calm conditions. They introduced far superior control mechanisms well before all other winged aircraft, including Santos-Dumont's 14-bis; 3) the Wright Brothers accurately described several principles of flight (including aerodynamics and propeller design) that previous pioneers had either described inaccurately or not at all; 4) the flight has been reproduced experimentally using a carefully recreated replica of the original aircraft.

It is this last point, the construction of replicas of the original Wright Flyer, that has exacerbated the controversy in recent years. Some of these replicas were modified using modern aerodynamic knowledge to improve their flight characteristics. Other replicas failed to fly at some public events. However, at least one flying replica was built without being modified. This aircraft, part of the the Wright Experience project, through painstaking research of original documents, photographs, and artifacts from the original Flyer (conducted much like an archaeological expedition), is believed to be an accurate recreation. The Wright Experience project had the stated purpose of building an exact replica of the original aircraft, whether or not it would actually fly. As it turned out, the aircraft did indeed make several successful flights.



Much of the controversy with regard to Santos-Dumont vs. the Wrights arose from the difference in their approaches to publicity. Santos-Dumont made his flights in public, often accompanied by the scientific elite of the time, then gathered in Paris. In contrast, the Wright Brothers were very concerned about protecting their intellectual property and made their early flights in remote locations and without many international aviation officials present. The defense of their flight was also complicated by the jealousies of other American aviation enthusiasts and disputes over patents. In November 1905, the Aero Club of France learned of the Wrights' alleged flight of 24 miles. They sent a correspondent to investigate the Wrights' accounts. In January 1906, members in the Aero Club of France's meeting were stunned by the reports of the Wrights' flights. Archdeacon sent a taunting letter to the Wrights, demanding that they come to France and prove themselves, but the Wrights did not respond. Thus, the aviation world (of which Paris was the center at the time) witnessed the products of Santos-Dumont's work first hand. As a result, many members, French and other Europeans, dismissed the Wrights as frauds (like many others at the time) and assigned Santos-Dumont the accolade of the "first to fly".

In any case, early reports of the Wrights' activities and the disclosure of key design features in their 1904 European patent filings certainly helped many airplane developers in succeeding years, including Santos-Dumont. Moreover, Santos-Dumont's success was aided by improvements in engine power/weight ratio and other advances in materials and construction techniques that had taken place in previous years.

There were many machines that got up into the air in a limited fashion and many variations of heavier-than-air titles to which varying amounts of credit have been awarded by various groups. For example, in the former USSR Aleksandr Fyodorovich Mozhaiski is sometimes credited as a "Father of Aviation", for his powered heavier-than-air machine going airborne (generally recognized as the second such flight in that category) in 1884. The disputes about the proper definition of "powered heavier than air flight" still go on. For example, with regard to gliders fitted with small engines that are used non-continuously; these debates do not extend to methods of take off systems. The issue of assisted takeoff can be an issue with early flights, however, since any help given is more significant for how long they were airborne for short flights.

Just as some seek to broaden the accomplishments of the 14-bis flights, there are others who seek to narrow them, although this is less common. One criticism is that the low altitude at which the 14-bis flew permitted the lift to be augmented by ground effect. The often low flights of many aviation pioneers, including some of the Wrights initial flights, fall prey to a complex debate over classifications of machines that are aided by this phenomenon.

Also, there have been some questions of the Aero-Club De France's conflict of interest concerning their involvement with Santos-Dumont's claim. The questions largely arise from their incomplete knowledge of the Wrights and their involvement with Santos-Dumont.

EgídioCampos, 2006.12.23, 23:55 UTC.

I'll call an NPOV to this page until the controversy about "who flied first" is explained in a more neutral view. In this article Santos Dumont and others are just mentioned as "other later ppioneers", but the concept of "first flying machine" is vague itself. Candlemass 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is a biography of the Wright Brothers, telling about their lives and their accomplishments. The article does refer to the separate article "First flying machine" for readers who want more information on that specific subject. This article also contains a "Competing Claims" section for a brief discussion of various claims. If there are specific parts of this article which are believed to be POV, please quote those parts here in Discussion so they can be examined. DonFB 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How does a brand new user know what an NPOV tag is? Dhaluza 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't take "experience" to know what an NPOV is, just common sense. Candlemass 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is what FAI has to say about Santos Dumont (note they only claim it was the first flight they witnessed and approved):

A CENTURY OF SPORTING ACHIEVEMENTS

On 12 November 1906, the Brazilian pilot Alberto Santos-Dumont flew his aeroplane in Paris over a distance of 220 metres. Historians consider this flight to be the first sporting aviation performance to be recorded by the FAI....

A century later, historians consider this flight, which was duly recorded by official observers from the Aéro-Club de France, to be the first aviation sporting performance homologated by the FAI....Dhaluza 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite correct. Here is an FAI page which refers to the Wright Brothers:  DonFB 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Add a bit more please.
I was looking for the date the plane took of but you don't have it. ADD A BIT MORE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!--69.223.45.49 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What does mean...
... "Add a bit more please.

I was looking for the date the plane took of but you don't have it. ADD A BIT MORE PLEASE!!!--69.223.45.49 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)?

I do understand it for data incompleteness about the trully occurred features — am I correct?

Egidiofc 14:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

protected or semi-protected status of page
This article page says it is "protected or semi-protected," but there is no discussion of that here that I saw (the word "protected" or "semi-protected" does not appear on this discussion page). I have been using Wikipedia for a long time, and have been reading up about editing, but have never actually created an account or edited anything until today. I am not able to edit the article. It says "view source" where other pages say "edit." —The preceding unsigned comment was added byFrankskey (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Sometimes there's more unhelpful edits going on then helpful ones. In this case a group of anonomous vandals were repeatedly altering the article.  The semi-protection prevents anonymous users and new users(like yourself) from editing the article.  You should be not-new soonish. i kan reed 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a search and found "Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy," which says I have to wait 4 days. I'm sure I have seen a notice at the top of article pages before that says something about protection. Do you think that would be good for this article? I don't know how to do it. (I guess I wouldn't be able to anyway!) Frankskey 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a little late to be of help, but if you look in the upper-right corner of the main article page, you'll see a little padlock icon. If you mouse-over it, you'll see that it links to the semi-protection policy, and it is the indicator that the page is semi-protected.  This version is sometimes used instead of the longer version that you've seen in the past to avoid cluttering an article.  You should be able to edit the article now, as it has been more than 4 days. —Krellis (Talk) 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination
Passed for Good Article. It meets all the criteria and then some. Definitely should be nominated for featured article. --Bookworm857158367 04:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dumont paragraph
The Santos-Dumont controversy was once part--a very large part--of this article. The Competing Claims section of this article was also once very large, as various editors put in their POVs about early aviators. I think it would be desirable for this section not to start becoming overgrown and overwritten as it once was. The claims for early aviators are now covered in First flying machine, which is referenced twice in this article. This article is a biography of the Wright Brothers. I have previously suggested (see Talk) the creation of a separate article for discussion of the Santos-vs-Wright controversy, where editors could introduce cited opinions at length to cover the issue in full. DonFB 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Karl Jatho
The information in the article is wrong. Karl Jatho was the first one, who made a working plane. Gustav Weißkopf build probably earlier a plane, but that wasn't documented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.171.9.116 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


 * If this is true, it should be mentioned in the article about the Wright Brothers. Otherwise, the impression is given that they have build the first powered plane. This has to be reletivated - even if some people won't like it. Usually, in Wiki-articles, there is a thorough discussion about an invention with respect to prior work. Why not here?


 * DonFB already answered that when he wrote: "The claims for early aviators are now covered in First flying machine, which is referenced twice in this article. This article is a biography of the Wright Brothers. I have previously suggested (see Talk) the creation of a separate article for discussion of the Santos-vs-Wright controversy, where editors could introduce cited opinions at length to cover the issue in full." Greensburger 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

67.186.5.81 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)This page really helps me with a lot of research other people should go on this too67.186.5.81 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This Article Is Great
This page really helps me with a lot of research other people should go on this too67.186.5.81 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You should put more things about Santos Dumont, He is widely considered to be the "Father of Aviation" and in fact he was.He could fly without using any help, the only reason the wright brother's plane flew it was beacause it was launched in the air, anything flys in the air with you use a catapult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.71.54 (talk)
 * This article is not a space for point of views, or a space for Brazilian Nationalism. The article is about the Wright brothers, who are officialy recognised (as stated and sourced) in the article, as being the first to fly a plane heavier than air. Be it with or without a catapult. There is already an article about Santos Dumont, who flew his plane in 1906, almost three full years (fact) after the Wrights had flown theirs. Take your nationalism and POV to another place, because here is not the place for it! —Precedingunsigned comment added by Billthekid77 (talk • contribs)

They haven't made the first airplane (self engined heavier than air flaying machine)
Beside the fact that they did fly first, it can not count as an airplane, because it had to be pushed to leave the floor, also the time and distance it flew cannot be consider an flight. although Santos Dumon did a fully successful flight with the 14-bis (catorze bis) and the mademossel (Don't know any french) which was later the model that Boing copied to be the commercial airplane. Also Santos Dumon did patent it's invention under a free license claiming that it's a Humankind Propriety and should not retain in the hand of one, just like free software. Taking advantage of that, the Wright Brothers license their one. Besides the American Pride couldn't let other nation claim the rights of being great...

The American Pride had to choose an american inventor that almost arrived there, ignoring the dates of the flies and the facts about them, just to prove that are better than anyone else.


 * First off, if you want to be taken seriously in any kind of debate, take the time to proof-read your work. Beyond verifying and citing your claims, check your spelling and grammar, and tone. You sound like an angry, uppity, self-righteous 4th-grader. Secondly, I don't see the relevance here. Why is this on the talk page? This talk page is for discussions about the written content article itself, and how to improve it. All I get from your post is a knee-jerk emotional rant, with no cited sources and no relevance to anything stated in the actual article. Use your own blog if you want a place to rave about international injustices. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Thirdly, I doubt the Wright Brothers flew a plane and patented it to try and screw over other nations. They had pioneered something which, at that time, was basically unheard-of, and was certainly groundbreaking and astounding -- it would make sense for them to patent it, lest someone try to rip them off. They had to eat and keep a roof over their head; preservation of a groundbreaking discovery is very smart --if I go hunting for food and shoot a deer, I don't walk down the road and ask everyone I see whether they want my deer because I think everyone in humanity should be able to have venison for dinner. Instead, I take it home and use it to feed my family. Most people wouldn't see that as illogical. I really don't see, therefore, why you're criticizing the Wright Brothers patents -- especially using modern anti-American rhetoric. What does your anti-American dogma have to do with the Wright Brothers? Nothing. You never knew the Wright brothers; so you have no basis to make claims about what their motives were. You also did not live in America back then, so you have no basis to make snide comments about American pride or supposed anti-foreigner American sentiments. Take your rhetoric and whining elsewhere -- Wikipedia isn't the place. Piercetheorganist 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now YOU calm down
 * Just because something is not patented, or patented with a free license does not detract from its existence. Would you say that Linux doesn't exist just because it doesn't use the Microsoft business model?
 * But both sides here should remember that Wikipedia is about Verifiability NOT truth
 * George Cayley invented the first powered flying machine, but it was too small to carry a man
 * Percy Pilcher PROBABLY flew the first powered controlled aeroplane in 1899, but without witnesses, it can't be verified
 * Richard Pearse flew the first man-carrying powered aeroplane to be observed, but it was uncontrolled flight and was only poorly recorded, and his patents were not published in the US
 * Santos Dumont verifiably first flew an unassisted take-off aeroplane
 * All of these men were 'firsts' just as much as the Wrights were
 * chrisboote 10:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Try getting of the anti-yank bandwagon for a moment and have a look at a few facts. The Wrights aircraft flew with and without assisted take-offs. It can and did fly with no assistance. It recorded distances of well over 1000 feet - sometimes several times that. If it wasn't flying it must have been falling very slowly. --LiamE 21:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, we'll have to keep an eye on the Brazilian vandals on both the Wright brothers article and the Santos Dumont one..the Brazilians are trying to say that Dumont was the first, just because he's Brazilian..nationalist bullshit!!!Billthekid77 20:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

NO MY DEAR, IT'S NOT NATIONALIST BULLSHIT. IT'S THE VERY TRUTH !! IT'S HISTORY... AND CANNOT BE CHANGED... SORRY —

ACTUALLY THE FIRST POWERED FLIGHT WAS BY A NEW ZEALANDER NAMED RICHARD PEARCE!!!!!!!

Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilemil (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The truth is that Dumont's first bis-14 flight was after multiple unassisted take off flights by the Wrights. Dumont was years too late to be considered the first to fly a heavier than air craft by any standard.Zebulin (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotations as "After multiple unassisted take off flights by the Wrights", have to be corrected to 'after multiple unassisted unverified take off flights by the Wrights' for historical accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by143.107.137.155 (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Section on Ohio/North Carolina Rivalry
Regarding the change of Ohio's slogan from "Birthplace of Aviation" to "Birthplace of Aviation Pioneers":

1. It applies only to the state quarter design; license plates, for example, are unchanged.

2. It was made unilaterally by the US Mint and without advance notice to Ohio officials who submitted the state quarter design.

3. It is not entirely correct, in that Wilbur Wright was born in Indiana.

Daurand 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

State rivalry
I edited out the driver's license photo and description of driver license security features that relate to the Wright brothers. The photo seems to be a bit of a vanity thing; the quoted text is invisible on the photo in any case; the material does not really add to encyclopedic knowledge of the Wright brothers. I moved the quoted material to the Smithsonian Feud section, where it seems more appropriate. Perhaps the deleted material (complete with driver's license pic) could be added to the article on North Carolina. DonFB04:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Separate controls
Here is my proposed re-write of the Separate Controls section, intended to reduce excessive detail and improve readability, and to add info about a control wheel and Wilbur's worst accident. Comments? Wilbur and Orville devised slightly different control systems in the airplanes they built separately in France and the U.S. for their 1908 public demonstrations. The Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum refers to "The Wilbur Method" and "The Orville Method". In Wilbur's method, the roll and yaw controls were combined on the same lever at the pilot's right hand. A forward-backward movement controlled the rudder, while a sideways or left-and-right motion controlled wing-warping. In the Orville Method, moving the stick controlled wing-warping, while a knob atop the stick controlled the rudder. In both methods the left-hand lever operated the forward elevator to control pitch. Wilbur trained French and Italian pilots using his method, and Orville trained American pilots at the Wright Company flight school using his method.

The dual levers lacked the intuitive feel of a control wheel, which Curtiss pioneered in 1908. The Wright brothers, however, were loath to copy any Curtiss innovation: doing so might jeopardize their patent—and their pride. On at least one occasion, a brother paid the price. During a practice flight in the 1905 Flyer at the Kill Devil Hills on May 14, 1908, Wilbur suffered his worst crash when he apparently pushed a control lever the wrong way and slammed the Flyer into the sand at nearly 50 miles an hour. He emerged with bruises and a cut nose, but damage to the airplane ended its flying career—and the practice flights. DonFB 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Terminology is wrong
In the article, what the Wrights called "well-digging" is referred to as a "ground loop"; in fact it is known today as "adverse yaw". Oddly enough, "ground loop" and "adverse yaw" are both described correctly elsewhere. --John Francis Crawford 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In "Wilbur and Orville," (1998 edition) on pages 87-88, biographer Fred Howard writes: "Instead of righting itself in response to the wingwarping control, the machine would start sliding sideways with frightening rapidity toward the low wing. Its tip would strike the ground, and the machine would swing about the grounded wingtip....They called this phenomenon 'well-digging'." A ground loop ("swing about the grounded wingtip"). Adverse yaw, on the other hand, occurred while still in the air. DonFB 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

FU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.190.119 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like one of these wretched misunderstandings. The pilot commands "wing up", and the wing in fact goes down further; this is "adverse yaw" or "aileron drag", and it still happens. At the very low altitudes under consideration here, the next step is for the wing to touch the ground and swing the machine around, causing it to stop flying, i.e. to crash. Presumably the Wrights called the combination of the two steps "well-digging".

In modern terminology a "ground loop" is different: during roll-out after touch-down, a so-called tail-dragger must be steered carefully. The reason is that the centre of gravity is behind the main wheels, making the aircraft unstable in the horizontal plane (i.e. about a vertical axis of rotation). A swerve can easily get away from the pilot, develop into a real spin (rather like a car), and cause major damage. I know: I have seen several and done one. It has nothing to do with what the aircraft was doing in the air, before it touched down.

This does not happen with "tricycle" undercarriage, where the main wheels are behind the centre of gravity and there is a nose wheel. Tail draggers, on the other hand, have a tail wheel or a tail skid. John Francis Crawford 19:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

History of the first airplan - Neutrality
I am unsure about the neutrality of this article, it might show an US-American view on the world. It is claimed in the first sentence that the Wright Brothers are "generally credited with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane", while there is an whole article about the First flying machine showing a history that pre-dates the Wright Brothers. The first airplane, a sole invention by the Wright Brothers? If you click on the same Wikipedia article in other languages you see different (national) interpretations of the topic. My suggestion would be to update the first section and put the Wright brothers into the historical context. I am adding a POV marker to the article page..... if this is unjustified please remove it. 83.254.215.231 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with the claim. It is sourced from three different, well-respected sources and the Wright Brother's claims are recognized by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, as noted in the article. So we already have multiple non-US sources that more than justify this. The article also links to First flying machine and discusses earlier claims, none of which are documented to the extent that the Wright claims are. The article does not claim that the Wrights' did invent the first airplane, it claims they are generally credited with this. This is well sourced and does not break our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view.
 * I've removed the POV tag. Please don't replace it. Gwernol 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that removing the POV tag should have had a deeper discussion! Right now the article does not really insert the Wright Brothers contribution into the chain of inventions that enabled humans to fly a controlled airplane (which in my personal opinion would be a much more neutral point of view than start with underlying a patriotic urban legend that credits the Wright Brothers). The first sentence is at best misleading and this tone continues in the next paragraph, which describes "fundamental breakthrough" for an invention which was based on previous work and later improvements as mentioned in the article ailerons. Personally I think the first section of the article is currently biased, regarding Fédération Aéronautique Internationale I understand they acknowledge the contributions not the sole invention. In any case, I made too many related edits in a short time... perhaps other people can comment with their opinion. 83.254.215.231 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts. The first paragraph explicitly says the Wrights were not the first to build and fly an experimental airplane. I presume, of course, that you have read beyond the introductory section of the article, so you will also know that the Early Career&Research section explains that the Wrights requested aeronautical information from the Smithsonian, and the article names several earlier scientists (Cayley,Lilienthal,etc) whom they studied. Reading a little further, you will see that the Glider section explicitly says the Wrights based their design on the work of Chanute and Lilienthal. You take issue with the wording "fundamental breakthrough" by saying theirs was "an invention which was based on previous work and later improvements". My question here is: how do you suppose they based their invention on "later improvements"? The Wrights were pretty smart, but even I do not credit them with inventing a Time Machine. Specifically, do you assert that the Wrights unfairly used the work of a previous scientist or experimenter who had already invented successful three-dimensional control using aircraft surfaces? DonFB (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not what I said. The invention of controlled flight is a combined achievment from before 1900, the Wright Brothers contribution and later improvements. The patriotic eye of some wants to make the outstanding achievement of the Wright Brothers in some fields of aeronautic an "US came first in motor flight story" or at least a "fundamental breakthrough". I am unsure what leads to these exaggerations but it results (unintentionally) in a biased article's introduction in my view. For clarification, my previous POV tag was on the introduction section. 83.254.215.231 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does not say or even suggest "US came first in motor flight story", nor does it use wording like "sole invention," as you incorrectly insinuate. Those are your pre-conceived and completely unsupported ideas about the article. The article does not attribute anything to the U.S. The article describes the work of two men. Everything in the world is a "combined achievement," from the invention of the wheel to the atom bomb, but some achievements are due especially to the efforts and discoveries of specific people more than others. If you don't believe successful three-dimensional flight control was a "fundamental breakthrough" by the Wright brothers, or don't believe their idea and method for doing it were original, you ought to say who did it first. Whose earlier work made a significant contribution to the invention of controlled flight? I see no exaggeration in the article, only facts. DonFB (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * More thoughts: Indeed, there were improvements after the Wright brothers, especially the use of hinged ailerons and discontinuance of the canard in favor of the rear stabilizer/elevator. Those, however, were refinements, not fundamental breakthroughs in the understanding of how to control an airplane. If you can find a good reference that says the Wright brothers did not make such a fundamental discovery, please let us know. DonFB (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While many Americans would love to believe that, this is about ideology and not about facts. If you decide to ignore history and diminish the contribution of others you could also claim that the pizza was invented in North America: It is generally credited that the first pizza was invented and created in New York, USA. Although there have been experimental pizza in Asia and Europe, the fundamental breakthrough of combining tomato sauce, cheese and peperoni allowed the pizza to become a world wide hit. There have been minor refinements since then. The US status as inventor of the pizza has been subject to counter-claims by various parties. Much controversy persists over the many competing claims of early pizza-like dishes.213.115.160.99 (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * May I suggest some good and seemingly needed reading. "The Invention of the Aeroplane 1799-1909(c.1966) by the late Charles H. Gibbs-Smith. One of the best and ACCURATE books on pre-Wright flight and early flight by IMHO the greatest early flight author. Koplimek —Preceding unsigned comment added byKoplimek (talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunely I also have to disagree the neutrality of the accomplishments in this article. In other languages the controversy of frst fight is more leveled. Here it seems biased the way that others try to steal their achievements. The same discussion like about others claiming the first flight have to be also used on the Whright Brothers. Considering the patent claims and commercial aspects of early flight s the Wrights have been good marketing experts to get their recognition. This is proved more than the actual flight in the "Smithsonian feud", some less neutral people would call this an open fraud. So I would recommend to level the neutrality in the "Competing claims" sections and add references to the other claims (Gustave Whitehead, Richard Pearse, Karl Jatho) here. User:peter.dittmann (my german wiki account doesn't work here ?)--89.48.10.136 (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again this argument was settled in the 1940s. Controlled flight was invented before the Wrights? I don't think so. The individual pieces existed ie ailerons, wings, rudders. If controlled flight existed then why didn't Langley, Chanute, Maxim, Ader make powered controlled flights. In Langley's case he flew un-manned machines successfully but how controlled were they? Once his models' power was expelled his aerodromes came down uncontrolled smashing into the ground or river and requiring a total rebuilding. Since Langley was well funded he could afford to rebuild every time and didn't consider uncontrolled landings a problem, so long as the machine flew. The Wrights fully understood that the beast had to be controlled at all times by the operator while in the air. Lilienthal made over a thousand glides semi-controlled by swinging his body. His luck & control ran out in August 1896 when he was killed the cause being a part of his stabilizer snapping(his disciple Percy Pilcher died in almost the same fashion in 1899). Chanute had a better built glider than Lilienthal but again like Lilienthal depended on control from swinging the pilot's body and an automatic stabilizer. There was no lateral control. Maxim & Ader had wonderful powerplants but unsound aerodynamic structures and their efforts to get in the air were hops & jumps, no sustainable flights for any duration. These important men were the most prominent experimenters immediately before the Wright Brothers entered the scene. They each may have had an ingredient to the stew but not the whole recipe if you can accept this analogy. The Wrights were the ones who completed the 'meal' so to speak by their introduction of three axis-control, the combined actions of yaw, roll & pitch, putting the pilot in complete control. Dr Tom Crouch has said on camera that no one had this arrangement before the Wright Brothers. Koplimek (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stamp-ctc-first-flight.jpg
Image:Stamp-ctc-first-flight.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Until Santos Dumont all Speculation
All flights until Santos Dumont only Speculation, while (also Wrights) without Experts and Public. U.J. from Germany 21:15, 25. Januar 2008 (MEZ)
 * you do not appear to be well acquainted with what the word "speculation" means.Zebulin (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You don`t get it with speculation? See you in the book "dictonary". I wrote without experts and publics. U.J. from Germany 0:55 27. January 2008 (MEZ) —Precedingunsigned comment added by 87.162.51.83 (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the same garbage from Alberto Santos-Dumont (where they're not satisfied with eyewitnesses & photographs, because it wasn't in Paris & ASD wasn't there), which also claims the Wrights' "early aircraft depended on a stiff headwind or catapult to become airborne, whereas Santos-Dumont's 14-bis took off under its own power". If somebody who knows more can correct this fiction, here & there, it'd be a good thing. Trekphiler (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I'm the guy who inserted the "stiff headwind/catapult" wording in the Santos Dumont article. It was sort of a concession to Santos partisans and does have considerable referencing. Taking off in a 20-plus mph wind was no problem at Kitty Hawk, but at Huffman prairie, they had to wait around for something like at least a 5 to 10 mph breeze to get into the air, using a takeoff rail up to 200 feet long, compared to 60 ft in North Carolina. They could get into the air with a minimal breeze, but would drop to the ground within a few hundred feet of takeoff if the breeze died. One of Wilbur's notebooks mentions the lack of wind on a particular day and he writes, "unable to fly". When they began using the catapult, they achieved a sufficient margin of initial airspeed to make sustained flights and learn how to turn and circle. This information, of course, does not change the essential fact that the Wrights made controlled sustained flights before Santos made his first fixed-wing hop. DonFB (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilbur Wright, the unrecognized American Genius
The new updates to the Wright Brothers article is excellent. I am a fan of the John Evangelist Walsh book, "One day at Kittyhawk" and a model airplane enthusiast(Radio Controlled).

One of the points not generally appreciated is that Wilbur tested different shapes of airfoils for lift AND STABILITY. He did this by testing the airfoils for lift at increasing angles of incidence in increments of 5 degrees(?). He dicovered that airfoils that were arcs of circles suffered an ABRUPT loss of lift as incidence increased past 20 or so degrees. This explain why Lillenthal crashed from 50 feet in the air as he favoured arcs of circles to generate his airfoils and was unable to recover from a stall caused by gustig wind.

The Wright airfoils have a maximum thickness at about one quarter of the chord as measured from the leading edge. This kind of airfoil start to lose lift at high incidences but more slowly and this can be perceived by the pilot of a small plane ("mushing") allowing correction.

This basic information is found in Walsh's book.

Fred Beal ___________

Lilienthal crashed from 50 feet because of structual failure of the glider(wire to the tail snapped), not it's airfoil design. The same exact failure with Percy Pilcher's 'The Hawk' which was almost completely based on Lilienthal. Yes Wilbur (& Orville) tested the airfoil shapes albeit Orville designed & built the wind tunnel alone while Wilbur went to Chicago to give his speech at the Engineers convention. Koplimek.

Air plaino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.89.74 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Was Orville Wright married?
This article states that Orville Wright wasn't married, but out of curiosity I checked familysearch.org and found that a Hattie McLaren is listed as Orville Wright's wife. There is no marriage date given, but nonetheless Hattie McLaren is listed as Orville's wife.

Kylethewright (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the biographies I've read say neither Wilbur nor Orville married. I found the listing you mentioned, and it shows this Mr. Wright's middle name was "Loren," ("Lorin" which was the first name of their next older brother (Reuchlin was the oldest). However, the biographies also mention that neither Wilbur nor Orville (nor Loren Lorin and Reuchlin, I believe) had middle names. The FamilySearch.org listing shows that the Orville married to Hattie died in 1959, which is 11 years after Orville of the Wright brothers died. I'm certain that if Orville had married, that fact would be mentioned in many or all of the sources about their lives. Emotionally, he seems to have been "married" to his sister Katharine, which may explain why he ostracized her when she actually did marry in 1926, at the ripe age of 52. DonFB (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * * * Don that's a great point about Orville, I too thought "he" & "Katherine" were married figuratively after Wilbur's passing. Wilbur did seem to court a girl named ??Elizabeth Mayfield in the 1880s before his hockey accident. Bishop Wright also notates in his diary in 1910 an Agnes Osbourne but not that Orville was romantically involved with her as a tv movie on the Wrights indicates. Biographers have noted Orville was closer to Katherine than Wilbur had been. They shared the same birthday & were the two youngest. They even called their St Bernard named "Scipio" by a nickname 'Baby'. I don't believe there was anything incestuous going on there. The three youngest Wrights, Wilbur, Orville & Katherine vowed to look after one another forever. It was how their parents had raised them. Wilbur's will stated that he left the majority of his assets to "...Orville as we have been associated in the expeditions of life since we were children and would use the money the same way I would if we should both survive till old age." Orville for his part spent the rest of his life assuring his & Wilbur's legacy and because of Orville we have the Wright Brothers story & the invention of the airplane told to us quite accurately. If Orville had died at Ft Myer and then Wilbur in 1912, who would've told the Wrights' story accurately. Katherine would've probably given it a shot for sure but what about the precise technical know how that only the brothers could imply. Katherine or Milton or possibly the long living Lorin would've also probably put the collation of complex technical matter into the hands of some author who had no idea of the importance of the information. It is fortunate that one of the Wright Brothers lived to old age to tell their story. Their house on Hawthorne Hill is testament that Wilbur, Orville & Katherine were prepared to live out their lives together right up to the end. Unfortunately events, mainly Wilbur's early death, diverted those plans. Katherine sacrificed heavily for her family as the man she eventually married had been someone she had known when they were younger in their college days in the 1890s. Katherine forsook marriage and child bearing to be at her father & brothers' side as was expected of her and as her mother would've probably wanted but when the opportunity to get married arose at 52 she acquiesced as most women want to be married. The Wrights were a tight knit family which is another reason for Wilbur & Orville's success with the airplane.Koplimek (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We can be thankful they did not both die young, or their story might have become hopelessly compromised, not merely sullied as it continues to be by the revisionists--overseas and home-grown. Gary Bradshawhas some interesting thoughts along this line. DonFB (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ann Honious has some great words to say along these lines as well. Koplimek (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Brothers vs. brothers
They did not have any time to have any dicussion about the Birds and the Bees to there parents because they were buisy building planes that is why they are not married or have any children because they did not know how to produce any children. -Liza Leykina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.70.240(talk) 00:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing the Brothers to brothers would normally be a Wiki standard, however the culture of our society has made the the capitalization a standard. Doing an internet search has shown that "Right Brothers" is the proper reference to these historic gentlemen. From the Smithsonian to the Park Service and in-between.... a few examples: http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/wright/default.asp “The first time Wilbur and Orville referred to themselves as "The Wright Brothers" was when they started their own printing firm at the ages of 22 and 18. Using a damaged tombstone and buggy parts, they built a press and printed odd jobs as well as their own newspaper.”
 * http://www.nps.gov/archive/wrbr/indepth/brochure.htm
 * http://www.first-to-fly.com/History/Wright%20Story/wright%20story.htm
 * http://www.nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers/
 * http://www.airplaneshop.com/display.php?tablename=ALLITEMS&search_classdesc=&search_airlinedesc=Wright+Brothers&search_param2=&stype=parametric&Submit=Submit
 * http://www.nps.gov/wrbr/
 * http://firstflight.open.ac.uk/
 * http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/page/w/wright.shtml
 * I recommend reverting the redirect. Respectfully submitted. LanceBarber (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Relglion
If I could get logged into my account I would write it from it but anyway were the wrights christians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by71.111.58.250 (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

im a loger
geeez geeez u ppls dont go on aim plz do it plzzzzzz geeeeze i give u free stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added byTimmypeyton55 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Marvelous
This is a beautifully written entry. It is balanced, factual, thorough and to the point. The writing is also really beautiful (in a spare, factual encyclopedia writing sort-of-way) in a number of places. It is in keeping with the highest standards of encyclopedia writing. Good work everyone! WardHayesWilson (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

100th Anniversary Wilbur's first French flight August 8 1908
It was on a Saturday. So today just a little shout out in remembrance of that landmark event August 8 1908 - August 8 2008 When I was in San Francisco lately, someone pointed out an area by San Francisco bay and claimed that the Wright Brothers had flown there at some time. Why is there no mention of this in the entry? I am confused. Was there any involvement of Southern California and the San Francisco area during the careers of the Wright brothers? —Precedingunsigned comment added by 71.63.129.59 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi neither Wilbur nor Orville ever flew an airplane in California. Their exhibition team pilots ie Phil Parmalee and Arch Hoxsey in Los Angeles area amongst many others flew Wright aircraft in the state. As far as the San Francisco Bay area is concerned, I have a feeling you may be referring to Eugene Ely a Curtiss pilot, who made history in January 1911 by landing the first aircraft on a ship anchored in San Francisco Bay. Ely flew Curtiss airplanes. Koplimek (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Connections to other famous personalities
Suggestion to create a new section that documents the Wright Brothers' connections to other great personalities of their time. For example, their support and timely patronage of their boyhood school chum, the great American black poet Paul Laurence Dunbar. This inter-racial friendship and the connection between two huge influences within American society, is an example of everything that is right with America. Presently, this connection is mentioned in the PLD article, but not in the WB article.

I'm sure that there are other fascinating personal connections involving the Wright Brothers that would be astonishing and interesting.

24.80.167.111 (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Laird Rice Vancouver, Canada


 * Ann Honious writes about the Wrights and their friendship with Paul in "What Dreams We Have"Koplimek (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Kill Devil Hills vs. Kitty Hawk
Why is Kitty Hawk claimed to be the location of the first flight, when clearly, it took place at the base of Kill Devil Hill located in the town of Kill Devil Hills, adjacent to Kitty Hawk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.114.219 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me best describe if I can. Kitty Hawk is the closest city to where the brothers camped out for their experiments. Kitty Hawk in the time of the Wrights was much more remote or even country than it is today. Today people seek expensive homes on the Outer Banks. Kill Devil Hills is four miles to the south of KH and is a vicinity or suburb around KH. Hence on December 17 1903, Wilbur in the last flight of the Flyer, was trying to reach Kitty Hawk, 4 miles away. Kitty Hawk vs Kill Devil Hills is similar to any other city with a suburb or vicinity within or around it. For example New York City has Manhattan, San Francisco has Knob Hill, Washington D.C. has Adams Morgan, Los Angeles has Hollywood. Hollywood has it's own distinct zip code but didn't always. Kitty Hawk was the closest postal city with zip code. Kill Devil Hills was a barren vicinity given it's name by the KH locals. The Wrights often write of Manteo or Elizabeth City, two other cities like Kitty Hawk in North Carolina. Koplimek (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Improve Smithsonian Feud section
I suggest that the section entitled The Smithsonian feud (shouldn't feud be capitalized?) be improved further by inclusion of a link to a Wikipedia page containing the full text of the contract between the Wright heirs and the Smithsonian. In that full text, also, the mandatory label reads differently, slightly. The words are nearly all capitalized, and this should be reproduced accurately, as follows:

The Original Wright Brothers' Aeroplane The World's First Power-Driven Heavier-than-Air Machine in Which Man Made Free, Controlled, and Sustained Flight Invented and Built by Wilbur and Orville Wright Flown by Them at Kittey Hawk, North Carolina December 17, 1903 By Original Scientific Research the Wright Brothers Discovered the Principles of Human Flight As Inventors, Builders and Flyers They Further Developed the Aeroplane Taught Man to Fly and Opened the Era of Aviation Deposited by the Estate of Orville Wright

"The first flight lasted only twelve seconds, a flight very modest compared with that of birds, but it ws nevertheless the first in the history of the world in which a machine carrying a man had raised itself by its own power into the air in free flight, had sailed forward on a level course without reduction of speed and had finally landed without being wrecked. The second and third flights were a little longer, and the fourth lasted 59 seconds covering a distance of 852 feet over the ground against a 20 mile wind." Wilbur and Orville Wright (from Century Magazine, Vol. 76, September 1908, p.649)

From Agreement signed by Executor of the Wright Estate and Secretary of the Smithsonian, November 23, 1948 available in print in History by Contract, O'Dwyer and Randolph (see citation 68), p.237-240

Further, aviation buffs should be changed to aviation researchers in the line:

Some aviation buffs, particularly those who promote the legacy of Gustave Whitehead, now accuse the Smithsonian of refusing to investigate claims of earlier flights.[68] AeroHistorian (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can enact these suggestions. Possibly, the "Agreement" page could be added to Wikisource, with a citation to O'Dwyer's book. The only online source I know of is the archived page from the former GlennHCurtiss.com website. According to Wikipedia style rules, only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalized in section headings; thus "feud" is lower case. DonFB (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Staying near Dayton
According to what I've read, as of 1904 they did not intend to return to Kitty Hawk, at least not any time soon. Crouch writes in chapter 20 of "Bishop's Boys":
 * "There would be no more trips to the isolated Outer Banks. They had always known that operations would have to be transferred closer to home at some point, so they could continue to work without the expense entailed by extended stays at Kitty Hawk."

Also, the chance of newspaper coverage should actually have been much greater close to Dayton compared to faraway Kitty Hawk, although as we have seen, reporters were pretty much oblivious to their activities. (Even though some newspapers reported the 1903 flights, the U.S. press and public were little impressed. In France, however, the aeronautical community took the events much more seriously.) DonFB (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Newpapers, The Public, The Army
hi Don, in response to a multitude of edits, I recently researched that many a newspaper ran with the December 17 flights, more than we often think. The problem is that a number of newspapers then are defunct such as the New York Herald. The telegram was addressed by sons to their father, so to many news editors they reasoned two sons would not lie to their father. The public(readers) may have been skeptical as many a scattered tinkerer were building contraptions in their back yard to fly. Most interesting the newspapers actually quote the Army being very interested in the Wrights' flights(five years before they gave a contract). This Army interest makes sense as they had just sunk a ton of money in the Langley full sized machine with negative results. It makes for interesting reading from our modern perspective. If you would like to check out some of the newspaper clippings, just google "Wilbur & Orville Wright Timeline 1867-1948", this is part of the Library of Congress Wright Papers. Thanks Koplimek (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kop, I understand your thinking about newspaper editors assuming the brothers would not send phony info to their father. But that is, after all, speculation about what the editors were thinking, not verifiable referenced knowledge. Rather than including speculation about what the editors were thinking, it seemed useful to include actual facts about how the story first got out (the leaked telegram, the very inaccurate initial news articles). The newspaper Scrapbook section on the brothers in the Library of Congress online is indeed fascinating, with a treasure trove of information. There's a bunch of other things I'd love to include in the article, but the article is getting pretty long, so I've tried to be fairly restrained lately in making additions. DonFB (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Virginian-Pilot headline was totally inaccurate but was only correct in stating the Brothers' flew. Some newspaper accounts were more correct than others. Do you think certain Wikipedia articles should be extended into a second page and the cited reference sections should be reduced at the end of Wiki articles? Koplimek (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think reducing references to shorten an article (if that's what you mean) would not be advisable. Often, when an article gets very long, some part(s) of it are split off into their own separate article(s). That's already happened to some extent with the glider section. DonFB (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

1906, 1907 The Lost Years
The Wrights spent the better part of 1907 in France and for the most part in negotiations. But I find 1907 the year that is least documented of the Wrights' career. Other than negotiations what did the brothers do over in Europe during their extended stay? Did they take in the sights or journey to other countries, this was their first trip overseas. It's been a while since I read "The Papers of Wilbur & Orville Wright" c. Marvin McFarland 1953. Based on their letters compiled in 'Papers', they corresponded frequently with their family back in Dayton. Also to stay in France or Europe on an extended basis meaans they had to have significant funds. The bicycle business had been hurting during their years traveling to Kitty Hawk and by 1907 they were virtually out of that business. So where did the income come from I alwsys wondered? perhaps they did have a significant amount of money put away or had invested. 1906 isn't that much better covered. We know they built several more airplanes in their shop and design a new 35 horsepower motor for the new planes. 1906 is mired in lots of correspondence with some very important people but the brothers didn't venture too far from Dayton that year. Koplimek (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Crouch does a good job explaining their activities in both years in "The Bishop's Boys," my go-to source for many WB facts. Fred Howard's biography, "Wilbur and Orville" also covers the period well. Those years are certainly the least glamorous and dramatic in the story, although the hit-miss character of the brothers' negotiations is quite interesting and sometimes humorous. Financially, the brothers got a few thousand dollars from their father's sale of farmland around this general time. I think the article is probably already too long now to add much about the period, although I have considered adding a sentence or two to characterize the uncertain, frustrating and often inflexible nature of their contract negotiations. I haven't looked for it, but I think Crouch has a good sentence along those lines that could be quoted or referenced. I also found the following in my notes: "But while their combined talents made it possible for the Wright brothers to produce the airplane, their mistrust of others almost cost them the credit for it."--American Experience program, PBS. Regarding the length of the article, in order to reduce the byte count to "make room" for a modest amount of new material, how would you feel about removing the Individual Control Arrangements and Ohio/North Carolina Rivalry sections? I believe the article could survive without them. DonFB (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Don, actually I don't mind those two sections. I rather like the fact that Wiki can include the esoteric in articles so long as they're not too long. The importance of the Wrights as inventors of the airplane necessitates a longer than normal article I believe, but within reason. For instance the bit I included about Wilbur's speech in 1901 to the Western Society of Engineers. In my entry on the Lusitania I put the info about Wilbur's flights in New York in 1909 and the fact that he flew over the ship. It was historical and not well known either as a Wright Brothers topic or a Lusitania topic. Anyone can find info like Wilbur's Western Society of Engineers speech in any worthy source on the Wrights. But most people clicking on to Wikipedia wouldn't know that info unless they were Wright scholars or buffs. I don't think Wiki should stoop to the level of for example Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book Encyclopedia which are well known for the brevity of their articles. Perhaps another comparison is the emptying of the modern library of books to accomodate electronic media. I for one love the extra material you'll find by idly thumbing through a 'physical' book, material you wouldn't necessarily looking for. I myself am partial to "The Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright" c.1953 compiled by Marvin McFarland and also writings by Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith. I agree with you that Wiki articles shouldn't ramble on about every little tidbit about a person's existence. For example the overlong Elvis Presley article. But I digress. Koplimek(talk) 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the subject justifies a "longer than normal" article and also with the proviso, "within reason". DonFB (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Don now that you've mentioned it, I'm actually thinking about relocating the Individual Control Arrangement data to the Wright Model A section since the brothers two methods of control initiated on that model of aircraft. Would that be ok? Koplimek (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds good to me. DonFB (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Derrick/Catapult system
Does anyone know how Wilbur and Orville managed to raise a 1400 pound weight up to the top of the derrick? In their 1904 & 1905 Huffman Prairie years it was just the two of them and Charlie Taylor at the field. I find it hard to believe that three men could handle a 1400 hundred pound drop weight manually. So what did the weight comprise of? how did they raise the weight to the top of the derrick by themselves? Later when the Wrights flew in public in 1908 & 1909 newsreel footage & still camera photos always shows a group of men hauling the weight rope up into place on the derrick. Usually a group of about ten or more men. All in all I would just like to know how they managed such a weight when they were experimenting alone in 1904 & 1905. It leads me also to believe that the process of putting the weight into place lends the credence that the brothers didn't always take off with the catapult system. Also did they have a mule & cart ready to assist them with hauling the weight? Too bad the brothers didn't document or log each take-off/flight and whether it was a derrick take-off or just a monorail launch Koplimek (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I recently read that they used a block-and-tackle pulley arrangement at Huffman to gain leverage and reduce the force needed to hoist the weight. Unfortunately, I didn't make note of where I saw this and don't remember. But you raise a good contrasting point about the practice in Europe of people vying for the "honor" of handling the rope to help pull up the weight. Library of Congress online images show Wilbur's notebook pages from 1904-5, with his entries for most flights, including date, flight duration and distance, length of the rail and notations of landing damage, accident, etc. However, I don't think any of the entries mentions the catapult. I have never seen anything about them using a mule. The Centennial of Flight website has an area that shows a "flight log" webpage for individual years from 1904 to 1918 with entries or summaries of all the flying they ever did. DonFB(talk) 05:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks for the info Don. I get the feeling that they could add weights onto the derrick once the rope was hoisted into place until they reached the desired poundage. Sort of like a modern weight lifting machine in a gym. Koplimek (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They did experiment with varying amounts of weight in the range of about 1200 to 1600 pounds, as I recall. They tried multiple launches to gauge the effectiveness of different amounts of weight. They eventually settled on something closer to 1200 than 1600 lbs. DonFB (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel Perry/Calbraith Perry Rodger
does anyone know if Israel Perry, the schooner captain who took Wilbur across Albemarle Sound to Kitty Hawk for the first time in 1900, related to the later Wright pilot Calbraith Perry Rodgers? Cal came from the famous Perry clan of sailorss. Koplimek (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A curious coincidence in names. From my reading, historians know almost nothing about Israel Perry, except what Wilbur wrote in a single personal note about that first boat trip.DonFB (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)