![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Unfortunately the two large infoboxes in the very top of the present lede are creating pinched text in the article's first section ("Childhood"), due to the childhood portraits there. The pinched text in the Childhood section can be either minimal or more profound and confusing depending on a reader's browser aspect ratio (screen width vs. font size, etc...). What may look acceptable on one browser can appear highly unreadable on another depending on the hardware and settings used, which are outside of Wikipedia's control.
A better article layout which can keep the childhood photos as they now are, would be to combine Orville's and Wilbur's photos and infoboxes into a single one, reducing the present height by about 40%. For their side-by-side photo I can suggest three choices:
recommend eliminating the childhood portraits since they're integral to that section. Comments/suggestions? HarryZilber ( talk) 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Born | Orville: Wilbur: April 16, 1867, Millville, Indiana | August 19, 1871, Dayton, Ohio
---|---|
Died | Orville: January 30, 1948 Wilbur: May 30, 1912 (aged 45), Dayton | (aged 76), Dayton
Occupation(s) | Orville: printer/publisher, bicycle retailer/manufacturer, airplane inventor/manufacturer, pilot trainer Wilbur: editor, bicycle retailer/manufacturer, airplane inventor/manufacturer, pilot trainer |
Spouse(s) | none (both) |
Both image choices would be fine, I am slightly more in favour of the latter. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
Is this sill a live issue? I see it was last discussed in May. If someone is planning to change the infobox image, I very much like the two of them walking together, even if there are slight problems with quality. BTW there are some dreadful postage stamp images of them!Dendrotek 16:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is wikiroject Christianity attached to this talk page? Pass a Method talk 10:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to suggest to connect references to Otto Lilienthal to the respective entry on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Lilienthal Goebel ( talk) 00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ckruschke, your edit summary comment of opinion/conjecture on the revert of the new material is curious since the sources are open for examination and highly reliable (Casey is a former curator of the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, and Yoon is part of a group of senior aerospace researchers and engineers who created Aerospaceweb.org). The only portion of the new material that offers conjecture is quite apparent: "Possibly on the basis of his work with the AEA, Curtiss refused to pay license fees....". I feel its reasonable conjecture but since there's no source for it I have now left it out for the time being. Otherwise the historical perspectives that the new material offers to the article appears more than relevant to the discussions where they have been inserted. The only other wording that's missing a direct cite is the reference to the Bell group believing that Curtiss had profited from their joint work on the aileron "(the AEA's other members.... later came to believe he had sold the rights to their joint innovation to the United States Government)", so I have now CN tagged it until the material which quoted it can be located (Bells' writings in either their letters or 'Home Notes' journal).
Hopefully you're not disputing the impact that the Boulton patent could have had on the Wright's patent litigation had the the parties been aware of its existence, since that's plainly stated in the Gibbs-Smith source: "If the Boulton patent had been known in 1903 to 1906 it is doubtful whether the actions fought by the Wrights would have succeeded." Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 19:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is a great Wiki. Congratulations. After reading the article and the discussion forum, I would like to recommend minor changes in order to improve its formalism and calm down people contesting its neutrality.
SECTION First Flight, Paragraph 1 - "The first flight [..] was recorded in a famous photograph." - Is this photograph in this article? Could we reference the reader to it or to somewhere else?
Paragraph 2 - "Meanwhile, against the brothers' wishes a telegraph operator leaked their message to a Virginia newspaper, which concocted a highly inaccurate news article that was reprinted the next day in several newspapers elsewhere, including Dayton" - Do we have a copy of this article we could link the reader to? More importantly, "The Wrights issued their own factual statement to the press in January." citation needed - Where is this statement? I believe this is a very important statement that we ought to reference.
SECTION Trouble establishing legitimacy, Paragraph 2 - "The Wrights were glad to be free from the distraction of reporters." I believe this comment needs explaining. It leaves margin to complaints regarding the trustworthiness of the article. If they were happy to be free from the reporters, why did they bother inviting them in the first place?
On the same lines, "Some scholars of the Wrights speculate the brothers may have intentionally failed to fly in order to cause reporters to lose interest in their experiments." If this was not a controversial issue (everyone claims to have been the first to fly), then this comment would be ok. But given the importance of subject... what is this comment doing here? It leaves room for complaints regarding any possible "bias" this article may have. Why compromise the article?
Regarding the flights:
August 13, 1904 Wilbur flew 1,300 feet. September 20, 1904, Wilbur flew the first complete circle in history. November 9 by Wilbur and December 1 by Orville, each exceeding five minutes and covering nearly three miles in almost four circles. September 26 through October 5: long flights ranging from 17 to 38 minutes and 11 to 24 miles over Huffman Prairie
This is the only part of the paper that is badly structured. Here we are clearly stating these flights were made, what is the "Trouble establishing legitimacy" then? Who and why doubts their legitimacy? I think we need to explain why the most important flights are written is a section casting doubt on the brothers. If these flights are controversial than it should be stated that the brothers claim to have flown but that they have never provided sufficient evidence.
"Reporters showed up the next day [...] but the brothers declined to fly." Some explanation on why they refused to fly while claiming they did must be given.
"Root offered a report to Scientific American magazine, but the editor turned it down." Why!?
MINOR COMMENTS, hyperlink to Santos-Dumont is never shown:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Santos-Dumont
Regards,
Aurelio Salton ( talk) 22:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Aurelio Salton ( talk) 12:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Following the discussion on 24 January 2013, the following changes are proposed.
Section Trouble establishing legitimacy, third paragraph. Changes suggested in italic::
" The Wright brothers claimed that on August 13, making an unassisted takeoff, Wilbur finally exceeded their best Kitty Hawk effort with a flight of 1,300 feet (400 m)."
"According to them, on September 20, 1904, Wilbur flew the first complete circle in history by a manned heavier-than-air powered machine, covering 4,080 feet (1,244 m) in about a minute and a half. They also claimed that their two best flights were made on November 9 by Wilbur and December 1 by Orville, each exceeding five minutes and covering nearly three miles in almost four circles."
"These modifications greatly improved stability and control, setting the stage for a series of "six long flights." According to a statement the brothers made to the the Aero Club of America [refer to the Dayton Metro Library below], these long flights ranged from 17 to 38 minutes and 11 to 24 miles (39 km) around the three-quarter mile course over Huffman Prairie between September 26 and October 5. Wilbur made the last and longest flight, 24.5 miles (39.4 km) in 38 minutes and 3 seconds, ending with a safe landing when the fuel ran out. The statement also points that the flight was seen by a number of people, including several invited friends, their father Milton, and neighboring farmers."
Dayton Metro Library The Wright Brothers Collection Scrapbook One (Scrapbook, 1890-1926), Page Two, pages 9,9a. Retrieved August 5, 2012.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelio Salton ( talk • contribs)
Aurelio Salton ( talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Aurelio Salton ( talk) 11:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Suggested changes not made. The Wright brothers' "claims" are widely accepted as fact because they are backed up by photographs, meticulous diary entries and eyewitness statements from Bishop Milton Wright, Octave Chanute, and others. Beekeeper Amos I. Root wrote about the Wright brothers successes on the Huffman Prairie in the journal Gleanings in Bee Culture in 1904. There is no reason to cast doubt on the Wright brothers by implementing the suggested changes. Binksternet ( talk) 14:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The source that authenticated the two photos is missing. Someone has to insert it.
How was the picture (1) (showing Wright brother's Flyer I plane) authenticated and proved it had been really taken in 1903 and not later? There is a striking similarity between this image and another one taken in May 1908, see (2). Both photos show what looks to be the same plane on a sandy slope.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_flight2.jpg labeled "First flight of the Wright Flyer I, December 17, 1903, Orville piloting, Wilbur running at wingtip."
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1905_Wright_Flyer_Kill_Devil_Hills.jpg labeled "Wright Flyer III in its two-seat configuration at the Kill Devil Hills, May 1908. Take-offs were made from the monorail launch track; the catapult was not used." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 17:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not reply to trolling comments from the IP editor in Montreal. Binksternet ( talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is no patent granted to Wright Brothers for a powered flying machine in 1906, as the text below suggests. The patent is just for a glider. Quote "Contracts and return to Kitty Hawk The Wright brothers made no flights at all in 1906 and 1907. They spent the time attempting to persuade the U.S. and European governments that they had invented a successful flying machine ... In May 1906 they were finally granted a patent for their flying machine." Somebody has to make the change because the patent is for something else, a glider, not that powered flying machine Wright Brothers told US and European governments that they had invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 18:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A glider has a different dynamic from that of a powered plane which has thrust beside other forces acting on an unpowered flying machine. A three axis controllable glider does not necessarily mean a tree axis controllable plane if one equips this glider with an engine, even if the mass of the motor, fuel and propellers is zero! What WB claimed in their patent has little value as long as they did not give an example of a powered flying machine that could have been controlled using their method. As a remark, the airplane built by W. Wright in France in 1908 was manageable but different from that claimed Flyer I and had dihedral stability (not covered in the 1906 patent) like the french planes of that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 ( talk) 14:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The Wright Brothers did not use true ailerons in their public flights in France but the wing-warping method which induced unwanted unbalanced drag that made the plane hard to drive. Ailerons have been used before Aug. 8, 1908 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron ). All french planes had dihedral auto roll control which freed the pilot of the big headache to control roll by hand. Despite the fact the Wright Brothers' propaganda machine keeps telling ailerons were essential for flight they were not. Only after 1915 ailerons (not wing-warping) came intro widespread use and this is only because war planes had to make sharp turns to avoid the enemy fire. Ailerons were an unnecessary complication in the first years of aviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
You are simply in denial. I gave you two examples of planes, Farman and Delagrange who had flown closed circuits without ailerons before the moment the Wright Brothers made their first public flight, before Aug. 8, 1908. Both Farman and Delagrange turned their planes many times during their demonstrations which means ailerons were not a must to control an airplane that made turns. When Farman added ailerons in October 1908 they were designed in such a way as not to induce unbalanced drag as in the case of the Wright Brothers. Also ailerons have been used before Aug. 8, 1908 (see "Other early aileron designers", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron ). For instance Bleriot VIII flew with ailerons before July 1, 1908 (see L'Aerophile 1 July 1908 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f264.image.r=wright.langEN ). Many radio controlled planes are still without ailerons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-controlled_aircraft ), they have only 3 RC channels yaw, pitch and throttle which makes them easier to fly. Regarding "Nous sommes battus", Delagrange said this simply because WB' plane was able to turn in place and made stunts. As regarding the affirmation "The brothers' fundamental breakthrough was their invention of three-axis control, which enabled the pilot to steer the aircraft effectively and to maintain its equilibrium." this is a big lie. The patent WB obtained in 1906 was about coupling roll and yaw in order to keep the plane stable not about three axis control. The brothers never used such a method in public demonstrations where they decoupled the roll from the yaw and also introduced dihedral stability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 ( talk) 14:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not abuse this talk page. Binksternet ( talk) 17:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The 2003, accurate replica ( see: http://www.wrightexperience.com/ ) of Wright Brothers' plane, tested on December 17, 1903, was not able to do more than short hops. None of its take offs came close to the claimed 59 seconds flight performed on December 17, 1903. What the 2003 experiment really showed was that the 1903 plane could have been theoretically able to take off and fly for 100 - 115 feet, no more. It was not capable to perform a sustained flight. The tests from 2003 demonstrated that Wright Brothers had exaggerated the performances of their claimed 1903, 59 seconds flight. The capabilities in flight distance of the 2003 Wright Brothers' replica are superior to those of Traian Vuia plane (tests in March and August 1906) and below those of 1906 Santos - Dumont flying machine (tests in October, November 1906). 1) "On November 20, 2003, Dr. Kevin Kochersberger piloted the 1903 Wright Experience Replica Flyer. With 15-18 mph winds he flew a distance of nearly 100 feet." see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VU 2) "December 3, 2003 test flight of the Wright Experience 1903 Wright Flyer Replica. Dr. Kevin Kochersberger was at the controls and piloted the Flyer for a distance of 115 feet. Slight cross wind after initial rotation which is compensated with slight wing warp." see video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg46QLzO3b0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 00:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
|
I think the Wright Brothers entry does not pay enough attention to John Montgomery and incorrectly gives way too much credit to the invention of practical flight controls to the Wright brothers. For years J. Montgomery was building and testing machines with much more effective controls than the Wrights. Well before 1900, while the Wrights were struggling with control, Montgomery's gliders were demonstrating excellent level of control on all three axes and had inherent stability - something that was lacking from the Wright's design.
After the death of J. Montgomery, the Wrights, with the help of substantial capital, began a systematic effort to claim credit and patents for work that was actually done by Montgomery. An excellent discussion on the topic, with full reference and documentation, can be found in Craig Harwood & Gary Fogel's "Quest for Flight: John J. Montgomery and the Dawn of Aviation in the West".
I think this pages requires a significant update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.76.62 ( talk • contribs) 01:09, February 27, 2013.
The text "After the men hauled the Flyer back from its fourth flight, a powerful gust of wind flipped it over several times, despite the crew's attempt to hold it down. Severely damaged, the airplane never flew again." does not cite any source. More, there is no word about such an incident in Wright Brothers' letters to Octave Chanute or articles in L'Aerophile and US journals that appeared in 1904. The text should be removed because it is just an unsubstantiated story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk • contribs) 21:41, March 1, 2013.
The book: "Picture History of Early Aviation, 1903–1913" at page 14 talks about Flyer I not about any glider. It is self evident that various authors, without quoting reliable sources, wrote different and conflicting accounts about Flyer I being flipped over by wind in 1903 which means the story is just distorted reality not a fact traceable in documents of the time (1903 - 1904).
It is true that some newspapers distorted and exaggerated what had allegedly happened on Dec 17, 1903 but the following text "The Wrights sent a telegram about the flights to their father, requesting that he "inform press." However, the Dayton Journal refused to publish the story, saying the flights were too short to be important." is misleading and leaves the impression that all newspapers in Dyton refused to publish Wrights' claimed success from Dec 17, 1903.
Under the title "Dayton Boys emulate great Santos-Dumont" the newspaper "Dayton Daily News" published on Dec 18, 1903 (page 8) an accurate account about Wright Brothers's claimed success. The article is quite visible, the title is big (see http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mwright/05/05001/0012.jpg ).
Also, even "Dyton Journal", under the title "Wright Flyer", written big and visible, published on Dec 19, 1903, an accurate account of what happened on Dec 17, 1903 (see http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mwright/05/05001/0014.jpg ) (the official version of the story). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 18:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
You always send me to the history book but I noticed that you know little aviation history and mix up things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 20:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The text, "The Wrights wrote to several engine manufacturers, but none met their need for a sufficiently lightweight powerplant. They turned to their shop mechanic, Charlie Taylor, who built an engine in just six weeks in close consultation with the brothers.", which again was inserted without any citation, throws, once more, doubts about the seriosity of people who wrote the Write Brothers' page.
The article about Taylor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Taylor_%28mechanic%29 ) also does not bring more light saying just that Taylor was a mechanic hired by Wright Brothers to repair bicycles and "He designed and built the aluminum water-cooled engine in only six weeks, based partly on rough sketches provided by the Wrights." (no reference supports the claim). Are there documents that confirm Taylor had some previous experience in designing engines?
It is not uncommon for a mechanic to adapt a ready made engine to a specific purpose, but to design it from scratch and build it in 6 weeks is simply incredible.
Additional information to better substantiate the Flyer I engine story is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 21:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
...do you mean to suggest that Whitehead had reliably outfitted some number of motorised aeroplanes prior to his consultation with them?The Wrights were referred to Gustave Whitehead of Bridgeport CT, an engine builder who'd designed and built lightweight engines for planes, at that time.
This text should be deleted "the capability of his flying machine, which far surpassed those of all other pilot pioneers."
L'Aerophile from 1908 noticed that Wright Brothers' planes had the advantages, (1) Light and (2) Aerodynamic (because they were not obliged to have wheeled carriages), (3) Could turn in place, and disadvantages (1) Unstable, they flew like a bat going up and down all the time, (2) They required a catapult to take off, (3) Hard to fly, the pilot needed considerable more training than for French planes. ( see http://archive.org/stream/larophile16besa/larophile16besa_djvu.txt ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 05:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Text that should be deleted, "They discussed and argued the question, sometimes heatedly, until they concluded that an aeronautical propeller is essentially a wing rotating in the vertical plane.[47]"
The citation does not demonstrate that Wright Brothers were the first to realize a propeller is, in fact, a rotating wing.
Many people had used propellers before, including Victor Tatin that flew a model airplane in 1879 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Tatin ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 23:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I am beginning to think, 24.203.73.246, that you are actually performing a useful service for this article by questioning uncited statements, and that your challenges may help the article eventually achieve Featured status by nagging other editors to add the necessary citations. I (or other editors so inclined) can add citations regarding some of your recent comments as time allows. Everything you've challenged has a reliable source to back it up. I wonder, though, if you plan to take the trouble to read either or both of the two main biographical works by Crouch and Howard. Those books would probably answer all your questions. DonFB ( talk) 05:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
This text, "Supporters of the Wright brothers argue that proven, repeated, controlled, and sustained flights by the brothers entitle them to credit as inventors of the airplane, regardless of those techniques.[116]" tries to accredit the idea that it is a historical fact, backed by undeniable evidence, that Wright Brothers really performed sustained (or not sustained) powered flights in the interval 1903-1905. In reality, this is just a claim. There is no solid evidence that someone really flew a plane in North America before Red_Wing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEA_Red_Wing ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 22:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The text "The brothers' fundamental breakthrough was their invention of three-axis control, which enabled the pilot to steer the aircraft effectively and to maintain its equilibrium.[4]" is inaccurate and not supported by the citation which just says the brothers solved problems of stability and control about all three axes to the extent they needed. Nobody says the brothers made a fundamental breakthrough in either planes, gliders control or stability.
Wrights did not use a horizontal tail which rendered their plane unstable. Also their wing warping method to control roll was not effective and abandoned early in the history of aviation. Plane from 1907 - 1908 flew stable and were able to make turns without ailerons or wing warping method which demonstrates powered flying machines could fly and go where one wanted them to go without using anything from Wright Brothers' patent obtained by them in spring 1906.
Citation from reference [4],"the notion that Wilbur and Orville perceived that control was more important than stability is further discussed. As Culick notes in Ref. 5, “Only the Wright brothers recognised that the great problem of control still remained to be solved….They faced and effectively solved, to the extent they required, problems of stability and control about all three axes.” Their accomplishments are all the more impressive when put in the context of the continuing development of aircraft flight mechanics post 1903; as pointed out by W.H. Phillips in Ref. 9, “The entire period from the Wright brothers to 1935, is characterised by a lack of understanding of the relation between stability theory and flying qualities.”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 23:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
There are two letters from Wright Brothers to Octave Chanute (see 1 and 2) in which the brothers repeated many times they were "the first to maintain the lateral balance by adjusting the wing tips to different angles of incidence" (roll). They did not mention the notion of "three axis control" and did not claim any breakthrough in governing an airplane on all three axis.
(1) Letter from 20 Jan 1910, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mwright&fileName=06/06014/mwright06014.db&recNum=2&itemLink=D?wright:1:./temp/~ammem_naNN::
(2) Letter from 29 Jan 1910 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mwright&fileName=06/06014/mwright06014.db&recNum=6&itemLink=D?wright:1:./temp/~ammem_naNN:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 20:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The literature on the subject generally agrees that the key to the success of the Wrights was their three-axis control system. Binksternet ( talk) 21:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)After modifying the glider’s rudder, the Wrights now had a true three-dimensional system of control. This three-axis control system was their single most important design breakthrough, and was the central aspect of the flying machine patent they later obtained. In its final form, the 1902 Wright glider was the world’s first fully controllable aircraft.
The article you mentioned ( http://authors.library.caltech.edu/11239/1/CULaiaaj03.pdf ) is highly unfavorable to Wright Brothers and its main idea is that "the "1903 Flyer I" was not governable by a human pilot". The good things the author says about the Brothers are immediately compensated by negative remarks. The article has an ironic tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 ( talk) 20:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The idea is that "1903 Flyer I" did not fly in Dec. 1903. The way the plane really behaves does not fit the description provided by Wright Brothers. (see http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/science/astro/2001-07-05-wright-flyer.htm ) (1)"EL SEGUNDO, Calif. (AP) — Aviation experts ... have found the Wright stuff — in the hands of modern pilots ... — is a little wrong."
(2)"I'd say it was almost a miracle they were able to fly it," said Jack Cherne"
(3)"Using that data, they created a computer flight simulator that shows the plane to be so unstable, it is nearly impossible to fly."
(4)"It's like balancing a yardstick on one finger, two at one time. If you lose it, it goes — quickly," said Fred Culick ..."
(5)""Every pilot, his first try, crashed the simulator. It took less than a second," said Capt. Tim Jorris".
(6)"I thoroughly cannot imagine the Wright brothers, having very little experience in powered aircraft, getting this airborne and flying," said Major Mike Jansen. "My respect for what they did went up immediately the first time I took the controls."
(7)"Modifications will include ... . A computer feedback system will assist the pilot. "We want the experience, but we don't want to kill ourselves," Cherne said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 ( talk) 16:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Since the controversy over who flew first still exists, but seems to be conducted mostly on the Whitehead article. Wikipedia must remain neutral in describing the controversy, which would mean there needs to be content here describing it. I'm adding Janes, the leading aviation historian, content giving credit to Whitehead for being the first to fly in WB introduction. Tomticker5 ( talk) 10:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
As soon as Jane's Editor makes a statement that Whitehead flew or flew first, it must be because he was "hoodwinked"? Brown is a neutral aviation historian. You say Whitehead was "dredged up" by Randolph in 1937? In 1904, decades before Randolph, Whitehead was included on a very short list of successful flyers who had all been outdone by the Wright Brothers years later. As the Editor of Jane's puts it; the Wrights were right, but Whitehead was ahead. Tomticker5 ( talk) 17:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This isn't supposed to be a blog about the subject, but rather comments should be limited to how an article can be improved. Censoring the inclusion of reliable sources that refute the statement that the Wright Brothers were the "first to fly in 1903" misleads the reader of this article. In 1904, Charles H. Cochrane published his Industrial Progress which states simply that the Wright Brothers outdid all previous flyers and soarers to date. The short list of successful flyers included Gustave Whitehead who flew in 1901 at Fairfield, Connecticut. The Connecticut Air and Space Center at Bridgeport's Igor Sikorsky Memorial Airport at Stratford, Connecticut has flown a replica of Whitehead's No. 21, and states very emphatically that Whitehead flew in 1901. 1901 is before 1903. Tomticker5 ( talk) 13:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Cochrane stated that Whitehead accomplished the balancing of the aeroplanes by shifting his body. Once it was determined that the aeroplane could carry more than his weight, a light 12 horsepower motor was attached. Tomticker5 ( talk) 15:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
No,.. reliable sources from who? anonymous users who are anti-Wright. Those reliable sources would only be followed by reliable sources that undo everything validating Whitehead. The WB article would denigrade into a pissing match of whether Whitehead did-or-didn't. Langley's successes with the models and spectacular failure with the manned Aerodrome were quite public which is why there's no controversy over Langley today. Whitehead alleged flights are so secretive they make Hangar 18 goings-on look public. Charles Cochrane writing in 1904 could hardly have known any truth about the Wrights flights at Kitty Hawk and suspect they are from the few newspaper reports and the Western Union message sent to their father. Just because re-enactors fly a Whitehead based machine(an approximation of the Lilienthal gliders which were successful), doesn't mean Gustave Whitehead flew in 1901, 1902 or even back in 1899. Get over Whitehead! If Whitehead did make those fantastical flights he claimed, then he is Aviation's greatest Fool for not following up with public flights; he missed the money and the glory. Koplimek ( talk) 01:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wright Brothers: Orville Wright Wilbur Wright 139.192.72.169 ( talk) 10:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I seem to recall seeing a magazine article, possibly in the Flightglobal archive, discussing the Wright Brothers' work and in particular a discussion of experiments on one or two particular craft by replacing the foreplane with a tailplane, and even the odd flight with both in place. Does anybody know any key details (title, date, url, etc) of this article? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 14:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Why was Orville so upset about Katharine's marriage to Haskell that he refused to attend the wedding and stopped communicating with her? Was Haskell Jewish? Nasorenga ( talk) 23:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
1st of all, they didn't fly, they didn't control it at all. It was more like a glider. 2nd, they are "consider" the airplane creators what doesn't mean its true, and its not. The 1st controlled flight was done sooner by Dummont, what is properly registered. You better fix that fast cos' my next move and edition will be mightest and I will be forced to take much harder measures. I appolagize for those who are attached to this idea but thats not a true real topic. There was a french that is supposed to invented it first, but for a lack of proof we can't consider. Although, Dummont has everything prooved and registered way before the wright brothers so this article has to be corrected. I propose for now just changing the creators inventors etc for " they are consider..." And you gotta quote the others inventors and they're dates as well. That's what a real science encyclopedia demands to be consider serious. So, do it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpivato ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Unfortunately the two large infoboxes in the very top of the present lede are creating pinched text in the article's first section ("Childhood"), due to the childhood portraits there. The pinched text in the Childhood section can be either minimal or more profound and confusing depending on a reader's browser aspect ratio (screen width vs. font size, etc...). What may look acceptable on one browser can appear highly unreadable on another depending on the hardware and settings used, which are outside of Wikipedia's control.
A better article layout which can keep the childhood photos as they now are, would be to combine Orville's and Wilbur's photos and infoboxes into a single one, reducing the present height by about 40%. For their side-by-side photo I can suggest three choices:
recommend eliminating the childhood portraits since they're integral to that section. Comments/suggestions? HarryZilber ( talk) 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Born | Orville: Wilbur: April 16, 1867, Millville, Indiana | August 19, 1871, Dayton, Ohio
---|---|
Died | Orville: January 30, 1948 Wilbur: May 30, 1912 (aged 45), Dayton | (aged 76), Dayton
Occupation(s) | Orville: printer/publisher, bicycle retailer/manufacturer, airplane inventor/manufacturer, pilot trainer Wilbur: editor, bicycle retailer/manufacturer, airplane inventor/manufacturer, pilot trainer |
Spouse(s) | none (both) |
Both image choices would be fine, I am slightly more in favour of the latter. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
Is this sill a live issue? I see it was last discussed in May. If someone is planning to change the infobox image, I very much like the two of them walking together, even if there are slight problems with quality. BTW there are some dreadful postage stamp images of them!Dendrotek 16:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is wikiroject Christianity attached to this talk page? Pass a Method talk 10:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to suggest to connect references to Otto Lilienthal to the respective entry on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Lilienthal Goebel ( talk) 00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ckruschke, your edit summary comment of opinion/conjecture on the revert of the new material is curious since the sources are open for examination and highly reliable (Casey is a former curator of the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, and Yoon is part of a group of senior aerospace researchers and engineers who created Aerospaceweb.org). The only portion of the new material that offers conjecture is quite apparent: "Possibly on the basis of his work with the AEA, Curtiss refused to pay license fees....". I feel its reasonable conjecture but since there's no source for it I have now left it out for the time being. Otherwise the historical perspectives that the new material offers to the article appears more than relevant to the discussions where they have been inserted. The only other wording that's missing a direct cite is the reference to the Bell group believing that Curtiss had profited from their joint work on the aileron "(the AEA's other members.... later came to believe he had sold the rights to their joint innovation to the United States Government)", so I have now CN tagged it until the material which quoted it can be located (Bells' writings in either their letters or 'Home Notes' journal).
Hopefully you're not disputing the impact that the Boulton patent could have had on the Wright's patent litigation had the the parties been aware of its existence, since that's plainly stated in the Gibbs-Smith source: "If the Boulton patent had been known in 1903 to 1906 it is doubtful whether the actions fought by the Wrights would have succeeded." Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 19:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is a great Wiki. Congratulations. After reading the article and the discussion forum, I would like to recommend minor changes in order to improve its formalism and calm down people contesting its neutrality.
SECTION First Flight, Paragraph 1 - "The first flight [..] was recorded in a famous photograph." - Is this photograph in this article? Could we reference the reader to it or to somewhere else?
Paragraph 2 - "Meanwhile, against the brothers' wishes a telegraph operator leaked their message to a Virginia newspaper, which concocted a highly inaccurate news article that was reprinted the next day in several newspapers elsewhere, including Dayton" - Do we have a copy of this article we could link the reader to? More importantly, "The Wrights issued their own factual statement to the press in January." citation needed - Where is this statement? I believe this is a very important statement that we ought to reference.
SECTION Trouble establishing legitimacy, Paragraph 2 - "The Wrights were glad to be free from the distraction of reporters." I believe this comment needs explaining. It leaves margin to complaints regarding the trustworthiness of the article. If they were happy to be free from the reporters, why did they bother inviting them in the first place?
On the same lines, "Some scholars of the Wrights speculate the brothers may have intentionally failed to fly in order to cause reporters to lose interest in their experiments." If this was not a controversial issue (everyone claims to have been the first to fly), then this comment would be ok. But given the importance of subject... what is this comment doing here? It leaves room for complaints regarding any possible "bias" this article may have. Why compromise the article?
Regarding the flights:
August 13, 1904 Wilbur flew 1,300 feet. September 20, 1904, Wilbur flew the first complete circle in history. November 9 by Wilbur and December 1 by Orville, each exceeding five minutes and covering nearly three miles in almost four circles. September 26 through October 5: long flights ranging from 17 to 38 minutes and 11 to 24 miles over Huffman Prairie
This is the only part of the paper that is badly structured. Here we are clearly stating these flights were made, what is the "Trouble establishing legitimacy" then? Who and why doubts their legitimacy? I think we need to explain why the most important flights are written is a section casting doubt on the brothers. If these flights are controversial than it should be stated that the brothers claim to have flown but that they have never provided sufficient evidence.
"Reporters showed up the next day [...] but the brothers declined to fly." Some explanation on why they refused to fly while claiming they did must be given.
"Root offered a report to Scientific American magazine, but the editor turned it down." Why!?
MINOR COMMENTS, hyperlink to Santos-Dumont is never shown:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Santos-Dumont
Regards,
Aurelio Salton ( talk) 22:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Aurelio Salton ( talk) 12:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Following the discussion on 24 January 2013, the following changes are proposed.
Section Trouble establishing legitimacy, third paragraph. Changes suggested in italic::
" The Wright brothers claimed that on August 13, making an unassisted takeoff, Wilbur finally exceeded their best Kitty Hawk effort with a flight of 1,300 feet (400 m)."
"According to them, on September 20, 1904, Wilbur flew the first complete circle in history by a manned heavier-than-air powered machine, covering 4,080 feet (1,244 m) in about a minute and a half. They also claimed that their two best flights were made on November 9 by Wilbur and December 1 by Orville, each exceeding five minutes and covering nearly three miles in almost four circles."
"These modifications greatly improved stability and control, setting the stage for a series of "six long flights." According to a statement the brothers made to the the Aero Club of America [refer to the Dayton Metro Library below], these long flights ranged from 17 to 38 minutes and 11 to 24 miles (39 km) around the three-quarter mile course over Huffman Prairie between September 26 and October 5. Wilbur made the last and longest flight, 24.5 miles (39.4 km) in 38 minutes and 3 seconds, ending with a safe landing when the fuel ran out. The statement also points that the flight was seen by a number of people, including several invited friends, their father Milton, and neighboring farmers."
Dayton Metro Library The Wright Brothers Collection Scrapbook One (Scrapbook, 1890-1926), Page Two, pages 9,9a. Retrieved August 5, 2012.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelio Salton ( talk • contribs)
Aurelio Salton ( talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Aurelio Salton ( talk) 11:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Suggested changes not made. The Wright brothers' "claims" are widely accepted as fact because they are backed up by photographs, meticulous diary entries and eyewitness statements from Bishop Milton Wright, Octave Chanute, and others. Beekeeper Amos I. Root wrote about the Wright brothers successes on the Huffman Prairie in the journal Gleanings in Bee Culture in 1904. There is no reason to cast doubt on the Wright brothers by implementing the suggested changes. Binksternet ( talk) 14:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The source that authenticated the two photos is missing. Someone has to insert it.
How was the picture (1) (showing Wright brother's Flyer I plane) authenticated and proved it had been really taken in 1903 and not later? There is a striking similarity between this image and another one taken in May 1908, see (2). Both photos show what looks to be the same plane on a sandy slope.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_flight2.jpg labeled "First flight of the Wright Flyer I, December 17, 1903, Orville piloting, Wilbur running at wingtip."
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1905_Wright_Flyer_Kill_Devil_Hills.jpg labeled "Wright Flyer III in its two-seat configuration at the Kill Devil Hills, May 1908. Take-offs were made from the monorail launch track; the catapult was not used." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 17:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not reply to trolling comments from the IP editor in Montreal. Binksternet ( talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is no patent granted to Wright Brothers for a powered flying machine in 1906, as the text below suggests. The patent is just for a glider. Quote "Contracts and return to Kitty Hawk The Wright brothers made no flights at all in 1906 and 1907. They spent the time attempting to persuade the U.S. and European governments that they had invented a successful flying machine ... In May 1906 they were finally granted a patent for their flying machine." Somebody has to make the change because the patent is for something else, a glider, not that powered flying machine Wright Brothers told US and European governments that they had invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 18:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A glider has a different dynamic from that of a powered plane which has thrust beside other forces acting on an unpowered flying machine. A three axis controllable glider does not necessarily mean a tree axis controllable plane if one equips this glider with an engine, even if the mass of the motor, fuel and propellers is zero! What WB claimed in their patent has little value as long as they did not give an example of a powered flying machine that could have been controlled using their method. As a remark, the airplane built by W. Wright in France in 1908 was manageable but different from that claimed Flyer I and had dihedral stability (not covered in the 1906 patent) like the french planes of that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 ( talk) 14:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The Wright Brothers did not use true ailerons in their public flights in France but the wing-warping method which induced unwanted unbalanced drag that made the plane hard to drive. Ailerons have been used before Aug. 8, 1908 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron ). All french planes had dihedral auto roll control which freed the pilot of the big headache to control roll by hand. Despite the fact the Wright Brothers' propaganda machine keeps telling ailerons were essential for flight they were not. Only after 1915 ailerons (not wing-warping) came intro widespread use and this is only because war planes had to make sharp turns to avoid the enemy fire. Ailerons were an unnecessary complication in the first years of aviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
You are simply in denial. I gave you two examples of planes, Farman and Delagrange who had flown closed circuits without ailerons before the moment the Wright Brothers made their first public flight, before Aug. 8, 1908. Both Farman and Delagrange turned their planes many times during their demonstrations which means ailerons were not a must to control an airplane that made turns. When Farman added ailerons in October 1908 they were designed in such a way as not to induce unbalanced drag as in the case of the Wright Brothers. Also ailerons have been used before Aug. 8, 1908 (see "Other early aileron designers", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron ). For instance Bleriot VIII flew with ailerons before July 1, 1908 (see L'Aerophile 1 July 1908 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f264.image.r=wright.langEN ). Many radio controlled planes are still without ailerons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-controlled_aircraft ), they have only 3 RC channels yaw, pitch and throttle which makes them easier to fly. Regarding "Nous sommes battus", Delagrange said this simply because WB' plane was able to turn in place and made stunts. As regarding the affirmation "The brothers' fundamental breakthrough was their invention of three-axis control, which enabled the pilot to steer the aircraft effectively and to maintain its equilibrium." this is a big lie. The patent WB obtained in 1906 was about coupling roll and yaw in order to keep the plane stable not about three axis control. The brothers never used such a method in public demonstrations where they decoupled the roll from the yaw and also introduced dihedral stability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 ( talk) 14:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not abuse this talk page. Binksternet ( talk) 17:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The 2003, accurate replica ( see: http://www.wrightexperience.com/ ) of Wright Brothers' plane, tested on December 17, 1903, was not able to do more than short hops. None of its take offs came close to the claimed 59 seconds flight performed on December 17, 1903. What the 2003 experiment really showed was that the 1903 plane could have been theoretically able to take off and fly for 100 - 115 feet, no more. It was not capable to perform a sustained flight. The tests from 2003 demonstrated that Wright Brothers had exaggerated the performances of their claimed 1903, 59 seconds flight. The capabilities in flight distance of the 2003 Wright Brothers' replica are superior to those of Traian Vuia plane (tests in March and August 1906) and below those of 1906 Santos - Dumont flying machine (tests in October, November 1906). 1) "On November 20, 2003, Dr. Kevin Kochersberger piloted the 1903 Wright Experience Replica Flyer. With 15-18 mph winds he flew a distance of nearly 100 feet." see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VU 2) "December 3, 2003 test flight of the Wright Experience 1903 Wright Flyer Replica. Dr. Kevin Kochersberger was at the controls and piloted the Flyer for a distance of 115 feet. Slight cross wind after initial rotation which is compensated with slight wing warp." see video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg46QLzO3b0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 00:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
|
I think the Wright Brothers entry does not pay enough attention to John Montgomery and incorrectly gives way too much credit to the invention of practical flight controls to the Wright brothers. For years J. Montgomery was building and testing machines with much more effective controls than the Wrights. Well before 1900, while the Wrights were struggling with control, Montgomery's gliders were demonstrating excellent level of control on all three axes and had inherent stability - something that was lacking from the Wright's design.
After the death of J. Montgomery, the Wrights, with the help of substantial capital, began a systematic effort to claim credit and patents for work that was actually done by Montgomery. An excellent discussion on the topic, with full reference and documentation, can be found in Craig Harwood & Gary Fogel's "Quest for Flight: John J. Montgomery and the Dawn of Aviation in the West".
I think this pages requires a significant update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.76.62 ( talk • contribs) 01:09, February 27, 2013.
The text "After the men hauled the Flyer back from its fourth flight, a powerful gust of wind flipped it over several times, despite the crew's attempt to hold it down. Severely damaged, the airplane never flew again." does not cite any source. More, there is no word about such an incident in Wright Brothers' letters to Octave Chanute or articles in L'Aerophile and US journals that appeared in 1904. The text should be removed because it is just an unsubstantiated story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk • contribs) 21:41, March 1, 2013.
The book: "Picture History of Early Aviation, 1903–1913" at page 14 talks about Flyer I not about any glider. It is self evident that various authors, without quoting reliable sources, wrote different and conflicting accounts about Flyer I being flipped over by wind in 1903 which means the story is just distorted reality not a fact traceable in documents of the time (1903 - 1904).
It is true that some newspapers distorted and exaggerated what had allegedly happened on Dec 17, 1903 but the following text "The Wrights sent a telegram about the flights to their father, requesting that he "inform press." However, the Dayton Journal refused to publish the story, saying the flights were too short to be important." is misleading and leaves the impression that all newspapers in Dyton refused to publish Wrights' claimed success from Dec 17, 1903.
Under the title "Dayton Boys emulate great Santos-Dumont" the newspaper "Dayton Daily News" published on Dec 18, 1903 (page 8) an accurate account about Wright Brothers's claimed success. The article is quite visible, the title is big (see http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mwright/05/05001/0012.jpg ).
Also, even "Dyton Journal", under the title "Wright Flyer", written big and visible, published on Dec 19, 1903, an accurate account of what happened on Dec 17, 1903 (see http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mwright/05/05001/0014.jpg ) (the official version of the story). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 18:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
You always send me to the history book but I noticed that you know little aviation history and mix up things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 20:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The text, "The Wrights wrote to several engine manufacturers, but none met their need for a sufficiently lightweight powerplant. They turned to their shop mechanic, Charlie Taylor, who built an engine in just six weeks in close consultation with the brothers.", which again was inserted without any citation, throws, once more, doubts about the seriosity of people who wrote the Write Brothers' page.
The article about Taylor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Taylor_%28mechanic%29 ) also does not bring more light saying just that Taylor was a mechanic hired by Wright Brothers to repair bicycles and "He designed and built the aluminum water-cooled engine in only six weeks, based partly on rough sketches provided by the Wrights." (no reference supports the claim). Are there documents that confirm Taylor had some previous experience in designing engines?
It is not uncommon for a mechanic to adapt a ready made engine to a specific purpose, but to design it from scratch and build it in 6 weeks is simply incredible.
Additional information to better substantiate the Flyer I engine story is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 21:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
...do you mean to suggest that Whitehead had reliably outfitted some number of motorised aeroplanes prior to his consultation with them?The Wrights were referred to Gustave Whitehead of Bridgeport CT, an engine builder who'd designed and built lightweight engines for planes, at that time.
This text should be deleted "the capability of his flying machine, which far surpassed those of all other pilot pioneers."
L'Aerophile from 1908 noticed that Wright Brothers' planes had the advantages, (1) Light and (2) Aerodynamic (because they were not obliged to have wheeled carriages), (3) Could turn in place, and disadvantages (1) Unstable, they flew like a bat going up and down all the time, (2) They required a catapult to take off, (3) Hard to fly, the pilot needed considerable more training than for French planes. ( see http://archive.org/stream/larophile16besa/larophile16besa_djvu.txt ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 05:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Text that should be deleted, "They discussed and argued the question, sometimes heatedly, until they concluded that an aeronautical propeller is essentially a wing rotating in the vertical plane.[47]"
The citation does not demonstrate that Wright Brothers were the first to realize a propeller is, in fact, a rotating wing.
Many people had used propellers before, including Victor Tatin that flew a model airplane in 1879 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Tatin ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 23:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I am beginning to think, 24.203.73.246, that you are actually performing a useful service for this article by questioning uncited statements, and that your challenges may help the article eventually achieve Featured status by nagging other editors to add the necessary citations. I (or other editors so inclined) can add citations regarding some of your recent comments as time allows. Everything you've challenged has a reliable source to back it up. I wonder, though, if you plan to take the trouble to read either or both of the two main biographical works by Crouch and Howard. Those books would probably answer all your questions. DonFB ( talk) 05:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
This text, "Supporters of the Wright brothers argue that proven, repeated, controlled, and sustained flights by the brothers entitle them to credit as inventors of the airplane, regardless of those techniques.[116]" tries to accredit the idea that it is a historical fact, backed by undeniable evidence, that Wright Brothers really performed sustained (or not sustained) powered flights in the interval 1903-1905. In reality, this is just a claim. There is no solid evidence that someone really flew a plane in North America before Red_Wing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEA_Red_Wing ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 22:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The text "The brothers' fundamental breakthrough was their invention of three-axis control, which enabled the pilot to steer the aircraft effectively and to maintain its equilibrium.[4]" is inaccurate and not supported by the citation which just says the brothers solved problems of stability and control about all three axes to the extent they needed. Nobody says the brothers made a fundamental breakthrough in either planes, gliders control or stability.
Wrights did not use a horizontal tail which rendered their plane unstable. Also their wing warping method to control roll was not effective and abandoned early in the history of aviation. Plane from 1907 - 1908 flew stable and were able to make turns without ailerons or wing warping method which demonstrates powered flying machines could fly and go where one wanted them to go without using anything from Wright Brothers' patent obtained by them in spring 1906.
Citation from reference [4],"the notion that Wilbur and Orville perceived that control was more important than stability is further discussed. As Culick notes in Ref. 5, “Only the Wright brothers recognised that the great problem of control still remained to be solved….They faced and effectively solved, to the extent they required, problems of stability and control about all three axes.” Their accomplishments are all the more impressive when put in the context of the continuing development of aircraft flight mechanics post 1903; as pointed out by W.H. Phillips in Ref. 9, “The entire period from the Wright brothers to 1935, is characterised by a lack of understanding of the relation between stability theory and flying qualities.”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 23:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
There are two letters from Wright Brothers to Octave Chanute (see 1 and 2) in which the brothers repeated many times they were "the first to maintain the lateral balance by adjusting the wing tips to different angles of incidence" (roll). They did not mention the notion of "three axis control" and did not claim any breakthrough in governing an airplane on all three axis.
(1) Letter from 20 Jan 1910, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mwright&fileName=06/06014/mwright06014.db&recNum=2&itemLink=D?wright:1:./temp/~ammem_naNN::
(2) Letter from 29 Jan 1910 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mwright&fileName=06/06014/mwright06014.db&recNum=6&itemLink=D?wright:1:./temp/~ammem_naNN:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 ( talk) 20:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The literature on the subject generally agrees that the key to the success of the Wrights was their three-axis control system. Binksternet ( talk) 21:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)After modifying the glider’s rudder, the Wrights now had a true three-dimensional system of control. This three-axis control system was their single most important design breakthrough, and was the central aspect of the flying machine patent they later obtained. In its final form, the 1902 Wright glider was the world’s first fully controllable aircraft.
The article you mentioned ( http://authors.library.caltech.edu/11239/1/CULaiaaj03.pdf ) is highly unfavorable to Wright Brothers and its main idea is that "the "1903 Flyer I" was not governable by a human pilot". The good things the author says about the Brothers are immediately compensated by negative remarks. The article has an ironic tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 ( talk) 20:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The idea is that "1903 Flyer I" did not fly in Dec. 1903. The way the plane really behaves does not fit the description provided by Wright Brothers. (see http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/science/astro/2001-07-05-wright-flyer.htm ) (1)"EL SEGUNDO, Calif. (AP) — Aviation experts ... have found the Wright stuff — in the hands of modern pilots ... — is a little wrong."
(2)"I'd say it was almost a miracle they were able to fly it," said Jack Cherne"
(3)"Using that data, they created a computer flight simulator that shows the plane to be so unstable, it is nearly impossible to fly."
(4)"It's like balancing a yardstick on one finger, two at one time. If you lose it, it goes — quickly," said Fred Culick ..."
(5)""Every pilot, his first try, crashed the simulator. It took less than a second," said Capt. Tim Jorris".
(6)"I thoroughly cannot imagine the Wright brothers, having very little experience in powered aircraft, getting this airborne and flying," said Major Mike Jansen. "My respect for what they did went up immediately the first time I took the controls."
(7)"Modifications will include ... . A computer feedback system will assist the pilot. "We want the experience, but we don't want to kill ourselves," Cherne said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 ( talk) 16:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Since the controversy over who flew first still exists, but seems to be conducted mostly on the Whitehead article. Wikipedia must remain neutral in describing the controversy, which would mean there needs to be content here describing it. I'm adding Janes, the leading aviation historian, content giving credit to Whitehead for being the first to fly in WB introduction. Tomticker5 ( talk) 10:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
As soon as Jane's Editor makes a statement that Whitehead flew or flew first, it must be because he was "hoodwinked"? Brown is a neutral aviation historian. You say Whitehead was "dredged up" by Randolph in 1937? In 1904, decades before Randolph, Whitehead was included on a very short list of successful flyers who had all been outdone by the Wright Brothers years later. As the Editor of Jane's puts it; the Wrights were right, but Whitehead was ahead. Tomticker5 ( talk) 17:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This isn't supposed to be a blog about the subject, but rather comments should be limited to how an article can be improved. Censoring the inclusion of reliable sources that refute the statement that the Wright Brothers were the "first to fly in 1903" misleads the reader of this article. In 1904, Charles H. Cochrane published his Industrial Progress which states simply that the Wright Brothers outdid all previous flyers and soarers to date. The short list of successful flyers included Gustave Whitehead who flew in 1901 at Fairfield, Connecticut. The Connecticut Air and Space Center at Bridgeport's Igor Sikorsky Memorial Airport at Stratford, Connecticut has flown a replica of Whitehead's No. 21, and states very emphatically that Whitehead flew in 1901. 1901 is before 1903. Tomticker5 ( talk) 13:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Cochrane stated that Whitehead accomplished the balancing of the aeroplanes by shifting his body. Once it was determined that the aeroplane could carry more than his weight, a light 12 horsepower motor was attached. Tomticker5 ( talk) 15:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
No,.. reliable sources from who? anonymous users who are anti-Wright. Those reliable sources would only be followed by reliable sources that undo everything validating Whitehead. The WB article would denigrade into a pissing match of whether Whitehead did-or-didn't. Langley's successes with the models and spectacular failure with the manned Aerodrome were quite public which is why there's no controversy over Langley today. Whitehead alleged flights are so secretive they make Hangar 18 goings-on look public. Charles Cochrane writing in 1904 could hardly have known any truth about the Wrights flights at Kitty Hawk and suspect they are from the few newspaper reports and the Western Union message sent to their father. Just because re-enactors fly a Whitehead based machine(an approximation of the Lilienthal gliders which were successful), doesn't mean Gustave Whitehead flew in 1901, 1902 or even back in 1899. Get over Whitehead! If Whitehead did make those fantastical flights he claimed, then he is Aviation's greatest Fool for not following up with public flights; he missed the money and the glory. Koplimek ( talk) 01:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wright Brothers: Orville Wright Wilbur Wright 139.192.72.169 ( talk) 10:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I seem to recall seeing a magazine article, possibly in the Flightglobal archive, discussing the Wright Brothers' work and in particular a discussion of experiments on one or two particular craft by replacing the foreplane with a tailplane, and even the odd flight with both in place. Does anybody know any key details (title, date, url, etc) of this article? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 14:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Why was Orville so upset about Katharine's marriage to Haskell that he refused to attend the wedding and stopped communicating with her? Was Haskell Jewish? Nasorenga ( talk) 23:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
1st of all, they didn't fly, they didn't control it at all. It was more like a glider. 2nd, they are "consider" the airplane creators what doesn't mean its true, and its not. The 1st controlled flight was done sooner by Dummont, what is properly registered. You better fix that fast cos' my next move and edition will be mightest and I will be forced to take much harder measures. I appolagize for those who are attached to this idea but thats not a true real topic. There was a french that is supposed to invented it first, but for a lack of proof we can't consider. Although, Dummont has everything prooved and registered way before the wright brothers so this article has to be corrected. I propose for now just changing the creators inventors etc for " they are consider..." And you gotta quote the others inventors and they're dates as well. That's what a real science encyclopedia demands to be consider serious. So, do it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpivato ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)