Talk:Wright brothers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the wight brothers went to Kitty Hawk for steady winds

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wright brothers article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Wright brothers has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 17, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Featured article star Wright brothers is a featured article at The North Carolina Portal, as it has been identified as one of the best North Carolina articles on Wikipedia. For more information on North Carolina articles and Wikipedia efforts to improve them, please visit the portal or the WikiProject.
This article was selected on the the Ohio portal as one of Wikipedia's best biographies related to Ohio.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] 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. They 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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!
EgídioCampos, 2007.02.01, 19:00 UTC.

Guardian Sysop,

The small editions by fifteen or twenty minutes ago were not vandalism 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!
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...:

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!
EgídioCampos, 2007.02.02, 15:45 UTC.

[edit] 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) random 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

{{NPOV-section}}

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-bis flight as well as some technical points (see below.) This has been traditionally the official position of the Brazilian government, especially since the Getúlio Vargas dictatorship. 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.

Headline from page 8 of the 18 December 1903 edition of The Dayton Daily News.From the archives of the Dayton Metro Library[1] Article refers to Wright's flight's without the "gas bag" assistance of Santos-Dumont's earlier Airships.
Headline from page 8 of
the 18 December 1903 edition of
The Dayton Daily News.From the archives of the Dayton Metro Library[1]
Article refers to Wright's flight's without the "gas bag" assistance of Santos-Dumont's earlier Airships.

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.[2] 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....[3]Dhaluza 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct. Here is an FAI page which refers to the Wright Brothers: [4] DonFB 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 by Frankskey (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billthekid77 (talk • contribs)

[edit] 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 —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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. DonFB 04:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 by Koplimek (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)

[edit] 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 the boilerplate 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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) —Preceding unsigned 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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," 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 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)

[edit] Brothers vs. brothers

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.”

I recommend reverting the redirect. Respectfully submitted. LanceBarber (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 by 71.111.58.250 (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 by Timmypeyton55 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)