Talk:Wright Flyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] First flying machine

The controversy about the first flying machine already has its own article, and need not be attacked in this article. The part about 14-bis is already found in the article on the Wright brothers, so in the interest of avoiding redundancy, I have removed that section in this page. I think it would be appropriate to move the part about 14-bis into the article about the first flying machine. Willy Logan 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. However, a reference to the 'first flying machines' article would be a good idea to make it clear where such discussion should go. I've added it.Blimpguy 12:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous edits

An anonymous editor added the following to the opening. It is clearly NPOV, and I have reverted it:

Much of it is vacuous. Even the 1905 Flyer has serious flaws, but it flew, really flew and the Wrights were there first, building a meticulous, systematic, thoughtful, creative, and persistent program to spectacular and unprecedented success.

The same editor also added this. It brings up some good points, but it needs reworking:

Every flight of the aircraft on December 14 and 17 -- under mildly insane conditions on the 17th -- ended in a forced landing (two on one flight when it bounced) or a crash. Also, turns were not demonstrated. In 1904, the Wrights found they needed redesign and new techniques to fly successfully, achieving these goals at the end of the 1904 program and even more decisively in 1905. The 1903 Flyer was a magnificent test vehicle, but its mythical status has obscured its proper place in the incredible developmental program leading to the Wrights mastery of flight in 1905.

Willy Logan 02:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Orville and Wilbur weren't licensed pilots, couldn't that have contributed a great deal to the high crash rate in the beginning? -Me

[edit] Wrong Location

The wright flyer is currenly on display it's own gallery, so the picture is wrong.... -NWeinthal


[edit] Picture

What about this picture? Randroide 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An absolute fact?

"It was the first successful powered, piloted, controlled heavier-than-air aircraft." Please give references for this statement, has the pope declared this as an absolute fact, or what is the basis for this statement, formed as an absolute fact? It is not the task of wikipedia to establish absolute truths. That statement needs a reference to an authority who says it is an absolute fact, or the sentence must be changed or stricken. According to whom? And where do you find anybody who can tell us what the absolute truth is? Roger491127 (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Because nobody else corrected the sentence I did it myself. You are welcome change it to another reference, as long as it is not presented as an absolute truth without a reference to which institution you use to back up an absolute truth. Roger491127 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you waited an hour and 15 minutes, and then added A lot of people think this? The usual is to wait a few days at least, if not a week. That's not an encyclopedic statement btw, and I would have removed it even if I wasn't adding a source. The italics not below the first paragraph was actually sufficient to call into question the statement, though I have moved the link into the "See also" section, which is where such links usually go. I hope the stamet and link I have added meet with your apporval, but if not, I'd appreciate it if you would discuss it here first. - BillCJ (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I was quite amused by the list of "reportedly" items claiming that various others beat the Wright Brothers. If the evidence was there, there would be no need for "reportedly". The charge that it's necessary to maintain some kind of "myth" about the Wrights being first, due to the need of Americans to claim it, looks to be the opposite - that America-haters are desperate for something to take away the "Wright"-ful claim. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
While I wouldn't have worded it quite so strongly in places, I concur with the sentiments. One hundred years from now, there will probably be people who claim that Americans weren't the first to land on the Moon (if they'll even admit Americans ever did in the first place), and some may even cite Jules Verne as proof! The fact of the matter is that their first flight and the developments that followed changed the world - even if they really weren't first, they were the ones that inspired all the others that follwed them, not these then-unknowns that are still unknown. - BillCJ (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Even if some (or even one) of those others beat the Wrights to the punch, nothing came of it, so it doesn't matter. Maybe a better comparison would be Christopher Columbus vs. Leif Ericsson. OK, so the Vikings came here first. But did it matter? No. Columbus' arrival is what mattered, which is why he still primarily gets the credit (or blame, depending on one's viewpoint). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're in the Air Force, now

Since I can't find it, let me post this here: "The Aeronautical Board, which conducted the official tests of the 1909 Flyer, were Lt. Frank Lahm, Lt. George Sweet, Maj. Charles Saltzman, Maj. George Squier, Capt. Charles Chandler, Lt. Benjamin Foulois and Lt. Frederick Humphreys." From http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=529&page=260 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekphiler (talk • contribs) 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)