Talk:Wright brothers/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Better infobox needed in the lede section

Orville & Wilbur Wright (draft sample)
The Wright Brothers in 1910
Born	Orville: (1871-08-19)August 19, 1871, Dayton, Ohio Wilbur: (1867-04-16)April 16, 1867, Millville, Indiana
Died	Orville: January 30, 1948(1948-01-30) (aged 76), Dayton Wilbur: May 30, 1912(1912-05-30) (aged 45), 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	none (both)
Signature

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:

1. Using their existing portraits, which would be cropped and slimmed for a side-by-side layout within the single infobox;
2. using a readily available photo in Wikimedia's archive (shown, right), which unfortunately is of lesser quality (although it can be cropped and highlighted). Note that this draft sample infobox only supports a single signature image file–but both signatures can be combined into a single image file;

[ recommend eliminating the childhood portraits since they're integral to that section. Comments/suggestions? HarryZilber (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I like your sample to the right and would support its use if the signatures were combined into one image file. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The draft looks good, but I'd prefer to keep the formal portraits, since they show their faces so well (and because the Belmont air meet pic shown in the draft is already very appropriately in use in the In Business section of the article). A little extra work would be necessary, but the formal portraits could be: cropped to tighten the space around the head-and-shoulders; combined into a single file or marked up as 'double image' (like the Childhood pix); size-reduced; and put at the top of a single infobox, along with combining the signatures. DonFB (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wright Brothers Orville (l), Wilbur (r)
Born	Orville: (1871-08-19)August 19, 1871, Dayton, Ohio Wilbur: (1867-04-16)April 16, 1867, Millville, Indiana
Died	Orville: January 30, 1948(1948-01-30) (aged 76), Dayton Wilbur: May 30, 1912(1912-05-30) (aged 45), 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)

How about this? DonFB (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Project

Why is wikiroject Christianity attached to this talk page? Pass a Method talk 10:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 October 2012

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)

Otto Lilienthal is briefly discussed in the article about the Wright brothers. What more were you looking for? Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Aileron invention and patent dispute

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)

Edit request on 24 January 2013

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." - 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)

Interesting comments. Here are some responses:

• The "famous photograph" is in the article, located at the beginning of the section, "Adding Power".
• The inaccurate Virginia newspaper article can be linked to. I've seen images of the newspaper article online, will look for it and add a link. That news article and the Wrights' later statement to the press are also discussed in Wright biographies by Crouch and Howard.
• The Wrights invited newsmen to Huffman Prairie, hoping to receive fair and accurate coverage of their flight attempt, unlike the above-mentioned very inaccurate news report about their Kitty Hawk flights. But their patent attorney had already advised them to avoid revealing many details of their work, or to give out photographs. Reporters at Huffman Prairie were requested/required not to take pictures of their airplane.
• I don't see an issue regarding scholars' speculation about the Wrights' intentions.
• The section about "Legitimacy" explains that journals like Scientific American and foreign newspapers doubted whether the Wrights had flown.
• The Wrights declined to fly in front of reporters in October 1905, because they feared that would reveal too much about how their airplane operated. As the "Legitimacy" section explains, the brothers became increasingly secretive, especially because they did not yet have a patent.
• Wright biographies (see the Bibliography) state that Scientific American rejected Root's article, but do not give information about the reason.
• A Wiki link to Santos Dumont is shown in the "Gliders" subsection of the article.

DonFB (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank's for clarifying these matters Don. My comments to your comments (in the same order),

1. Should we point the reader to the photograph? I for one didn't know that photograph, it is a pretty good historic material.
2. I would love to read that story, thank you. It could also justify why the Wright brothers invited the reporters.
3. In fact, that makes a whole lot of sense. They called the reporters in to give a fair description of their flying machine, and were unlucky that they couldn't make it work properly. What is contradictory is to say that they "were glad to be free from the distraction of the reporters." To say that they invited the reporters, failed in their presentation, and were glad to be discredited does not make sense. If they wanted an accurate coverage, that is clearly not what they had, and couldn't be glad about it.
4. I suppose leaving the scholar's speculation in the article is a matter of style. However, a rigorous peer reviewed paper would not receive this comment well.
5. True, there is a paragraph on disbelief by the press. I had missed that.
6. Ok.
7. That is true, I was just hoping for some explanation. But there is no reason why the journal should have any record of rejected papers. Too bad for us.
8. Indeed there is a link to santos Dumont in the Gliders section. I believe I was referring to the parts where his name is cited along with others, such as, "Ader, Maxim, Langley and Santos-Dumont", " Santos-Dumont, Henri Farman, Leon Delagrange and American Glenn Curtiss" and " Traian Vuia and Santos-Dumont." Everybody has links, except for him.

This is a great wiki. I tend to hunt down possibly biased articles, but I am happy with this one (specially considering the huge bias motivation many writers could have). Overall I believe there is little reason to complaints in here. Except for one: the long flights are reported as factual, but there is a reason whey they are part of the "Trouble establishing legitimacy." Don, you haven't addressed this question in my first review. In fact after reading this Wiki I dug deeper on this long flights, which would have been extraordinary for the time. A huge leap in aviation at that time. Wikipedia in general is not the place for extraordinary claims, specially if the evidence is very scarce. If we are to be truly unbiased, we must say the the Wright brothers claim to have made those flights. In fact, the reference that is used is a claim by the Wright brothers themselves: "Dayton Metro Library has a document showing durations, distances and a list of witnesses to the long flights in late September-early October 1905," this document is a statement made to the Aero Club of America, by the Wright brothers. The way this is reported at the moment clearly states that these flights are factual, but the only fact we know is the brothers claimed they did it. Should we not seek higher standards for formalism and neutrality?

--Aurelio Salton (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. I'm also not sure there's much else to be done, so I'm closing this. Thank you for your statements! Vacation9 23:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Specific points on Edit request on of 24 January 2013

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)

Respectfully, I cannot agree with any of the above proposed edits. The Wright flights at Kitty Hawk in 1903 and their 1904-1905 flights (short and long) at Huffman Prairie are accepted historical fact by aviation scholars, not mere "claims" by the Wright brothers. See again the Bibliography and other referenced sources. No serious (non-Brazilian) aviation historian questions the factuality of these events. The Wrights kept detailed logbooks of their work (the log for the first circle flight is shown in this Wiki article, for example), and of course they took many photographs of their flights during the period, several of which are also shown in this Wiki article. The full Wright brothers photographic collection and all the Wright logbooks and diaries are preserved at the U.S. Library of Congress, a world-respected institution of learning and scholarship, and can be viewed online by interested parties (see the footnotes, references and source info linked from the wiki photos). DonFB (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the above mentioned flights are accepted as factual by the great majority of the aviation scholars. Being this a true statement, it should be added to the text as well. We also now for a fact that the only evidence regarding the Huffman Prairie flights are claims made by the brothers themselves. Hence, what should be stated is that the brothers claim to have made those flights.

It is not up to the authors of any Wiki (or any serious article for that matter) to affirm what did or did not happen. Instead, only factual statements should be reported. This is precisely what was advocated in the review suggestion. The personal opinion of the authors should not be stated at all and the personal opinion of other authors, scholars and authorities should be sated as what they are: personal opinions. Hence the agreement regarding the statement that the majority of aviation scholars accept these claims as true. If question arises regarding any of these statements, evidence can be provided to support them.

Aurelio Salton (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the photographs qualify as "claims". They are documentary evidence. In the bibliographic materials, authors explain that Scientific American queried witnesses named by the Wrights and received confirmation from them that flights were made. Your statement, "the only evidence regarding the Huffman Prairie flights are claims made by the brothers themselves" is not accurate. In any case, Wikipedia's job is to report, neutrally, statements made by historians and other reliable sources. The issue has not been debated among professional historians since 1908; nevertheless, various private persons have continued the argument down through the decades to the very present day. But theirs are extreme fringe arguments and not worthy of space in this article. DonFB (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The photographs Don is referring to are indeed in the U.S. Library of Congress and can be accessed in the following link: http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=wright+brothers&fa=original_format%3Astill+image&dates=1904-1904 There are 12 pictures from 1904, of which 6 show their machine flying. These pictures are no evidence that "Wilbur flew the first complete circle in history," that their flights exceeded "five minutes and covered nearly three miles in almost four circles," or that some of these take offs were unassisted, as currently stated in the Wiki.

Now Don, there is no need to place the revisions I have suggested together with conspiracy theories or fringe arguments. I believe you are doing a disservice to the current discussion, which has been very positive so far. When it comes to the neutrality of Wikipedia, this is precisely the reason why the revisions I've suggested should be made. The facts that can be asserted are that the Wright brothers claimed to have made these flights. This is the statement that truly shows neutrality. It doesn't attempt to affirm what did or did not happen, instead it provides the actual existing evidence. I wasn't expecting this reaction to such a subtle matter. Aurelio Salton (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Aviation historians and Wright biographers who are reliable sources uniformly describe Wright flights as facts, not 'claims'. Aviation writers have done so ever since Wilbur's flights in France. If reliable sources expressed doubt or uncertainty about Wright flights at Kitty Hawk or Huffman Prairie by using the term 'claim,' this Wikipedia article could report that information and cite those sources in the references.

In the absence of reliably sourced statements which describe the status of Wright flights as 'claimed' rather than factual, suddenly changing the text of this Wikipedia article to repeatedly use 'claim' would reflect the point of view of the editor who makes such changes, not the expertise of the reliable sources upon which this article is, and should be, based.

The changes being proposed in this article would have been entirely appropriate in versions of Wikipedia published in 1906-1908, when facts about the Wright brothers were still unknown, their abundant documentary materials were not yet public, and historians, scholars and biographers had not yet had the chance to perform decades of research, resulting in detailed knowledge of the full range of Wright flying achievements--knowledge which the wording of this article should, and does, reflect. DonFB (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What piece of evidence appeared in 1908 that verified the Huffman Prairie flights that we are discussing? (this is an honest question).

Please note it is not my intention to offend any Wright Brothers' fans. The reason I added so many times the word "claim" is because the user Vacation9 politely requested me to make specific "change X to Y" statements. It would be much better to make a more compact argument in the form:

According to a statement the Wright brothers made to the Aero Club of America on March 12 1906, the following flights, with respective distances and cause of stopping, were made at the Huffman Prairie airfield:

[List the flights as given by the table in that document]

This document also stated that a complete circle was fist made on the 20th of September 1904, and that ... List all the other flights.

Then, naturally, cite the document, a copy of which may be found at http://www.daytonmetrolibrary.org/images/stories/history/wrightbrothers/scrapbooks/WB_Scrapbook_One Statements reported as such do not reflect the opinion of anyone, they in fact do not reflect any opinion at all. I believe all I'm asking is to cite the sources, that's all.

Aurelio Salton (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wilbur's flights in France marked the historical moment when the world aeronautical community--except in Brazil--accepted that the Wrights had told the truth when they previously informed the press about their various flights of 1903-05.

The document at the Dayton Library is already footnoted in this article. I believe that's how you're aware of it. I added footnotes to the article for the first circle flight and for the two five minute flights, and also for the inaccurate Virgina newspaper story about the Kitty Hawk flights. Hopefully, these additions will expand your education about the Wright Brothers. DonFB (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• If the question is whether the Wright brothers or Alberto Santos-Dumont earned the title "first to fly" then Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith laid that to rest. He said the airplane 14-bis was "famous but sterile", meaning it had no hope of further development. He said the airplane made a "hop-flight" or "hops" in 1906; not true controlled flight. He wrote that the 14-bis had a "totally inadequate control system". The Wright brothers achieved controlled flight earlier than Santos Dumont. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Don, why did you put a link to my profile at iamResearcher?

Thank's for joining the conversation Binksternet, but no, this has nothing to do with Alberto Santos-Dumont. Aurelio Salton (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It was my wise-guy way of highlighting that many Brazilians, even the well-educated, continue after all these decades to resist the factuality of the Wright brothers' achievements. Are you at all mollified by the citations I added?

Keep in mind that no editor of this article is required to "prove" to you or anyone else the facts about the Wright brothers as presented in the Wikipedia article. Apparently insisting on such proof, you wrote, "What piece of evidence appeared in 1908 that verified the Huffman Prairie flights that we are discussing?" You also wrote, "The facts that can be asserted are that the Wright brothers claimed to have made these flights." Asserted by whom? You? The reliable sources used for this article state the information as facts. If you want to overturn those statements, you would need to overturn the reliablity of the sources, not with your own debating tactics, but with other generally accepted reliable sources which constitute consensus about the Wright brothers. You are free to challenge the wording of the article, or the sources upon which it is based, but as I think you may not be familiar with Wikipedia rules, I suggest you read information here, here and here. DonFB (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is insaaaaaane... I am far from mollified, rather baffled by your comment. How dare you point the fact that I'm brazilian and use that as a rebuttal to my comments. This is a disservice to Wikipedia, a worldwide organization that does the best it can to be immune to such unacceptable forms of bias. Unacceptable! My review is not by least impaired by the fact that it came from a brazilian. Report what is known, and how it is known! And in the very least apologize for your irresponsible wording.

Not to me by the way, I am not offended. Who you are truly harming are the thousands of other editors who do their best to push Wikipedia's reputation higher every article and every review. This was my intention here, to improve the standards of an otherwise well written document. You are slamming the door shut in my face because there is nothing I can do, or say, or argue, that will change the fact that I'm brazilian and that, apparently, this makes my opinion invalid. Or inferior? Or biased? Or what Don, you tell me. Aurelio Salton (talk) 13:48, 7 February 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)

A nice cup of tea...

Let's all take a time-out to have a cup of tea, or coffee if you prefer, as the tone is becoming shrill here. Additionally there's no need to offer wise-guy personal attacks by way of links. Editors can agree to disagree for a number of reasons, but in the end we should all politely abide by WP's policies, procedures and guidelines. HarryZilber (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize.

Your effort to "improve the standards" of Wikipedia was cloaked in gushing praise for this article, while your specific suggestions were clearly a revisionist effort to trash the fundamental and history-making aeronautical accomplishments which the Wrights are known for and which have been confirmed for decades by historians, scholars, etc., as shown in this article's numerous References. I made the comment regarding Brazil because that's where insinuations such as yours have repeatedly come from in the past, for example in this article about aviation history by Dr. Bento Mattos and Paulo Cesar Giarola. Writing about the Wright brothers, the authors made such comments as, "it becomes clear that [the] Flyer was more a powered glider than a true airplane"; and referring to the 1904-1905 flights without actually naming those years or acknowledging that flights took place during those years , they said, "It is highly improbable that such long-endurance flights would be unnoticed by the American press at that time"; and in the next sentence, they wrote, "The Brazilian Alberto Santos Dumont changed the world forever after he built his aircrafts"[sic]. Regrettably, this article appeared in 2003, not 1906, 07 or 08 when the authors could be excused for such historical myopia and for failing to study voluminous documentary and photographic evidence which had yet to be deposited, though probably before the authors were born, in the U.S. Library of Congress. (The subject of "the American press" is specifically discussed and explained, with footnotes, in the Wikipedia article about the Wrights.)

You said:

"The personal opinion of the authors [of Wikipedia] should not be stated at all and the personal opinion of other authors, scholars and authorities should be sated [sic] as what they are: personal opinions."

Wikipedia says:

"Requiring an inline qualifier for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on an inline qualifier for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion"....Presenting a "fact" as an "opinion" is needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements, and so creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none."

I recognize, however, that in Brazil--meaning no disrespect--there is such doubt and disagreement. Applying the standards of Wikipedia, I believe such localized skepticism amounts to a fringe point of view which must not be enshrined pervasively in the text of this article in the form of your proposed changes, which you label, either naïvely or disingenuously, as "a subtle matter" DonFB (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, we're done here. There is no way we are going to buck mainstream consensus to implement the changes suggested by Aurelio Salton. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Authentication missing. Strangely similar pictures of "Flyer I 1903" and "Flyer III 1908"

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)

Click on each picture to go to Wikipedia File page, which contains link to authenticated information. DonFB (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous text. Which flying machine?

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) No, there is nothing wrong with the text. The flying machine patent was for sufficient in-flight control of the aircraft, something that no other inventor had figured out. The motive power of the flying machine does not matter. Certainly the patent drawing shows an unpowered glider, but the patent applies to any flying machine, powered or unpowered. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Support please your affirmation "the patent applies to any flying machine, powered or unpowered" with credible citations. Which authors have said this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC) The patent itself states this fact, as can be seen directly on the Wikpedia page of the article. The Patent War section of the article includes an image of an excerpt of the patent application, which explains that the invention relates to flying machines which move through the air "either by the application of mechanical power or by the utilization of the force of gravity." Also, a footnote links to the full text of the patent. I've already addressed this issue by making small changes to the text of the article in response to your original comment at the beginning of this section of the Talk page. DonFB (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC) OK, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 00:41, 20 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) You clearly know nothing about the subject.TheLongTone (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC) The control method invented by the Wright Brothers (1906 patent) was quite bad. When the wing warping left aileron was in the raised position the glider rolled to the right and in the same time turned to the left!!! because the left aileron, being raised, increased the aerodynamic resistance of the left wing in comparison to the right wing (Read the WB patent with care - see http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/WrightUSPatent/WrightPatent.html WB explain this effect). To compensate such an unusual behavior (a roll to the right induced a turn to the left!!!) the Wright Brothers had to turn the vertical rudder in such a way as to cancel the turn to the left. Only to fly the WB glider or alleged plane straight line, trying to keep the wings parallel to the ground, only to compensate the wind disturbances, both ailerons and the vertical rudder had to be steered continuously by the pilot. An enormous complication! The Wright brothers never applied the 1906 patent in public flights. Their 1908 plane had dihedral wings (like the french planes) which made the WB' plane to always tend to come back to the normal flying position (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer_III#cite_ref-sharpe_3-0 ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC) You clearly do not know what you are talking about: the patent covers the use of rudder to counteract wing-warping drag. Have you read any of the reactions of the French aviators to what they saw at Le Mans in August 1908??TheLongTone (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC) (A) The french ailerons were designed in such a way as not to induce that wing-warping unbalanced drag the WB' glider in the 1906 patent had! A french pilot did not need to use ailerons or the vertical rudder to keep the plane flying straight line. This is an enormous advantage! When the brothers flew in France they added dihedral stability and disconnected the wing-warping mechanism from the vertical rudder which means they flew a roll stable airplane not unstable as in the 1906 patent. The only big problem they had in France was the unbalanced drag induced by wing-warping but only when they desired to turn the plane not all the time as in the case of the glider in the 1906 patent. (B) Regarding what the french aviators said about WB, L'Aerophile from 1908 remarked that the Wright Brothers' plane had the advantages, (1) Light plus (2) Aerodynamic (because it was not obliged to have wheeled carriages), (3) Could turn in place, and disadvantages (1) Unstable, it flew like a bat going up and down all the time (pitch instability), (2) It required a catapult to take off, (3) Hard to fly, the pilot needed considerable more training than for French planes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Which European airplanes had effective ailerons before Wilbur's 1908 public flight demonstations? Which European pilots understood and demonstrated 3-axis flight control before those demonstrations? Who said, "Nous sommes battus"? When and why did he say it? While still gliding, the WB were well aware of the advantages and disadvantages of using anhedral or dihedral in their aircraft. When the brothers began flying for big public crowds in 1908, their flight control theory and methods were light years ahead of the Europeans, most of whose aircraft were patterned after Wright gliders seen in photographs, but completely lacked roll control. That's why the Europeans spent so much time flying in straight lines until finally "mastering" the art of flat, unstable turns using only rudder control early in 1908, a technique they were still using when Wilbur began his flight demonstrations in August, exhibiting 3-axis control and fully coordinated banked turns, neither of which had been seen (or understood) in Europe before. DonFB (talk) 07:12, 4 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) Why did Henri Farman fit ailerons to his Voisin as soon as he saw the Wright Brothers fly in 1908? (and use them in the Farman III, one of the most-copied aircraft of the era?16:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC) To perform more aerobatic maneuvers which brought more public to his demonstrations and in consequence more money. Farman's planes did not really need ailerons to fly and make turns. Regarding "one of the most-copied aircraft" it should be added "in England", not everywhere. Why in England, because Farman was of English origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Roll control, at first by wing-warping, then by ailerons, was essential for controlled flight. If you only wanted to fly in a straight line, you might survive using only dihedral. Any dihedral French airplanes had was because the pioneers did not know how to truly control their craft. They only learned how after watching Wilbur: "Nous sommes battus." Are you not aware that ailerons also create drag which has to be counteracted by rudder control? That's the system invented by the WB, used on virtually all airplanes ever since (their patented warping was upheld in U.S. courts as taking priority over ailerons as an invention for roll control). Your version of history, of course, is patent nonsense, but I wouldn't want underinformed readers of this page to take it seriously. DonFB (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC) The under-informed reader is you. Farman flew closed circuits without any aileron. Just take a look at this address http://earlyaviators.com/efarman.htm . You will find all the flights of Farman in 1907-1908. A few important examples, (1) January 13, 1908--- Farman Won Deutsch-Archdeacon prize of 50,000F. offered four years before for the first complete circuit of 1,000m. at Issy, duration 1 min. 28 secs. Another new DURATION AND DISTANCE RECORD; also SPEED RECORD of 1:28 for one kil. (2) March 21---DURATION AND DISTANCE RECORD flight of 2,004.8m. in 3:31, doubling previous official flight in circular flight. (3) July 6, 1908---At Issy, Farman flew 20:19.6, winning the Armengaud prize of 10,000F. for first machine to fly a quarter hour in France. A new DURATION RECORD.(4) July 31-August 8, 1908---Farman flew in America at Brighton Beach, New York. (5) September 29, 1908---42 kils. in 43 mins. at Mourmelon. (6) October 2, 1908---40 kils. in 44:32 mins. at Mourmelon. (8) October 28, 1908---M. Painleve carried about two kils. and other flights made up to 40 kils. Ailerons put on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC) I already made reference to the Europeans' rudimentary "control" when I wrote (wryly) above about their "'mastering' the art of flat, unstable turns using only rudder control early in 1908, a technique they were still using when Wilbur began his flight demonstrations in August." None of the Europeans' flights before then matched Wilbur's duration/distance circling record using 3-axis control at Huffman Prairie three years earlier. I am curious, though; what is your point in endlessly harping about the WB? DonFB (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC) On Apr. 11, 1908 (see the picture and explanations from here http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f158.image.r=farman.langEN ) Leon Delagrange flew 3925 m in 6 min and 30 sec circling a triangle with the sides measuring 350 m, 200 m, 275 m which means that at about each 30 seconds the plane made a turn, the plane flying at an average height of only 3 meters. It is quite clear Delagrange's plane was extremely maneuverable. It made turns loosing less than 3 meters in altitude and without hitting the ground with one wing or other problems. The ailerons or wing-warping method were simply unnecessary excepting the situation when the aviator really wanted to perform stunts like turning in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Not long ago, you were saying French planes had ailerons during this period: "The french ailerons were designed in such a way as not to induce that wing-warping unbalanced drag..." (false) Now, in your latest learned remarks, they're not using ailerons. More to the point: roll control, invented, patented and demonstrated by the WB, is what made private, commercial and military aviation possible. The technique was immediately adopted by European aviators who saw Wilbur's demonstrations or learned of them. Understanding the overwhelming advantage of 3-axis control, they did not share your opinion that "ailerons or wing-warping method were simply unnecessary." Answer my question: who said "Nous sommes battus" and why? DonFB (talk) 06:48, 5 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) Another pointless repetition of well-known information (Europeans made flat turns with rudder control only) and pointless denial (there's that word again) of the WB accomplishment, which is recognized worldwide by aviation historians, scholars and biographers. The brothers coupled roll and yaw automatically (the hip cradle) and by separate hand controls later; both methods worked and represent the invention of the airplane as we know it. Ask any historian. DonFB (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC) This big lie should disappear from Wikipedia "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.". You do not even read what I write. French planes were stable without wing-warping and ailerons and they made effective turns. Read again all the messages I have written and try to understand them. On the contrary, WB's planes were the ones with stability problems, "European aviators criticized Wright aircraft with their distinctive forward elevator or canard as unstable. Compared to other aircraft, the Wright planes seemed to "gallop" through the air as the pilot struggled to maintain altitude." (source http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Aviations_Attic/Lost_Flights/Lost_Flights.htm and this is one of your favorite sources!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC) You avoid mentioning that by then, Europeans had already adopted 3-axis control as demonstrated by Wilbur. For fun, you might also endeavor to understand why they adopted it and why virtually all airplanes since then have used three axis-control invented by the WB. I know what you believe (it's irrelevant); which historians believe and write that flat, rudder-only turns were "effective"? DonFB (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC) It was the opposite. WB learned from Europeans how to improve the stability of their planes. I quote from your favorite source, "European aviators criticized Wright aircraft ... as unstable. Responding to this criticism, he (Orville) mounted a single fixed horizontal surface ... to the outriggers just behind the rudder and found that it did indeed make the airplane more manageable". ( source http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Aviations_Attic/Lost_Flights/Lost_Flights.htm ). Anyway, the topic Three axis control and WB is already discussed ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wright_brothers#Three-axis_control_was_the_weak_not_the_strong_point_of_Wrights.27_plane ). Please read again that topic. WB did not even claim the paternity of "Three axis control". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC) The place to read authoritative factual information about the WB invention of 3-axis control is history books and biographies, not, unfortunately, this page. The Flyer pitch behavior is well-known and does not change the established historical fact of the WB invention of 3-axis flight control, which made aviation possible. In closing, it does need to be said that the idea that "Three-axis control was the weak not the strong point" boggles the mind for its ignorance and foolishness. It's a phrase that would fit comfortably in 1984, like, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." DonFB (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

2003 replica of Dec. 17, 1903 plane couldn't do more than short hops

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) The 2003 tests showed what the 2003 machine did. Those tests don't "show" what the 1903 Flyer did. For that information, read any book on aviation history or any Wright bros. biography. Also, before you clutter up this page any more with home brew theories, read the Wikipedia Talk page guidelines. The very first paragraph of that guideline says: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page...is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." DonFB (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC) After the passage "Modern analysis by Professor Fred E. C. Culick ... in 1985 ... has demonstrated that the 1903 Wright Flyer was so unstable as to be almost unmanageable by anyone but the Wrights..." I propose the insertion of the text "and the 1903 Wright Experience Replica Flyer, that executed two successful flights in 2003 piloted by Dr. Kevin Kochersberger, demonstrated Professor Fred E. C. Culick was right. The replica couldn't be maintained in air more than 115 feet also the pilot was quite experienced (1400 hours of flight)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC) What reliable source says "Prof. Culick was right"? It's quite possible he was, but your personal opinion that he was right is insufficient for Wikipedia. Also, read this policy on synthesis carefully. DonFB (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC) It is not my personal opinion but the experiments of Dr. Kevin Kochersberger with an accurate replica (see above). Also, wind tunnels tests at a NASA research center (see below), done with another 1903 Flyer replica, confirmed the instability predicted by Prof. Culick. Quote ""They built it and then drew as they went along," said Fred Culick, professor of aerodynamics at the California Institute of Technology and chief engineer on Cherne's team. ..." Cherne's group, working mainly on weekends in a warehouse donated by a rocket company in El Segundo, finished what they considered an exact replica. Then in 1998 they tested it at NASA's Ames Research Center near Sunnyvale, Calif. Three weeks of wind-tunnel tests of their Wright Flyer replica "clearly showed how unstable it was and how it can't be flown safely," said Culick". ( http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20031008&slug=wright08 ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

My point to you, 24.203.73.246, is that it is your personal opinion that the Kochersberger tests showed Culick was right. That's quite possibly true, but your personal conclusion is not a reliable source to make the statement in this article that "Prof. Culick was right". DonFB (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

John J. Montgomery deserves more than a footnote here

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.

Try to keep in mind this is not the Wikipedia History of aviation article, or Early flying machines or Timeline of aviation or List of firsts in aviation or List of aviation pioneers or Early flight or Timeline of aviation – 19th century or even the John Joseph Montgomery article. However, you may want to consider contributing to any or all of those, especially the last one noted. DonFB (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No word about 1903 Flyer I being flipped over by wind

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 information can be found in Fred Howard's biography on page 139. A shorter version is in Joshua Stoff's picture book, accompanying a photograph of the damaged aircraft: Picture History of Early Aviation, 1903–1913. Ray Bonds also writes about the incident in his The story of aviation: a concise history of flight, page 32.

Thanks for the note. I put the Howard book into the article as a reference, because Howard has the most detail about the accident. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The book "Picture History of Early Aviation, 1903–1913" says just this, at page 14, "A gust of wind that flipped over and damaged the Flyer kept them from flying again for several days." Evidently, the author did not talk about the flights from Dec. 17, 1903. The text, I proposed to be deleted refers, to an event that happened Dec. 17, 1903. You do not want to tell me the wind flipped over the plane each day they tried to fly the it in 1903?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk • contribs)

You are referring to the Joshua Stoff book which is not referenced in the article. Stoff says the incident "kept them from flying again for several days" but the Wrights did not fly that aircraft ever again, per Howard and also Bonds. Furthermore, James Tobin and Tom D. Crouch agree. Tobin says "the machine had made its final flight" in regard to the flipping-over of the Flyer on December 17 after the four flights. Tobin, To Conquer the Air, page 193. Crouch says, following the gust-of-wind accident, "the active career of the 1903 Wright airplane was at an end." Crouch, First Flight, page 63. There were no more flights in 1903 after the fourth one on December 17. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Stoff book, which I have not read, may be referring to the 1900 glider, which was hurled across the sand by the wind and nearly destroyed, in a preview of what happened in 1903. The brothers repaired the glider and used it again. There is a photograph of the wrecked glider online at various websites which can be found with a little research--the brothers called it, "the hill of the wreck." I will add, 24.203.73.246, that your many disagreements with the well-documented history of the WB shows a clear bias against that history, not a mere desire to improve the accuracy of this Wikipedia article. Keep trying if you want to, but to avoid the obvious appearance of trolling, at least do some basic research into the wealth of information about the WB before raising additional nuisance objections on this page and making such ill-considered requests as, "The text should be removed," when answers can so easily be found in the dozens of authoritative books about the WB, and in many online articles from reliable sources, such as the Smithsonian Institution, the Library of Congress, NASA, the National Park Service, and PBS, to name a few. DonFB (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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).

We are not citing the Stoff book. Stoff's "fact" is something I consider a small mistake, considering that the other highly respected authors agree that the Flyer was so much damaged that it never flew again. Tom D. Crouch has the most detail on the incident. We do not need to concern ourselves with Stoff's picture caption. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That is not true. Various authors have various stories about the Flyer I being flipped over. There is no consensus. Secondly, what an author said has no value as long as his affirmations can not be traced to old documents of the period when the events happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Dayton Daily News published an accurate account about Wright Brothers's claimed success

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)

This newspaper account has been criticized for inaccuracy, especially the unbidden and incorrect comparison to Santos-Dumont. Read the literature on the Wrights and you will see. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Read the documents I quoted. There is a link to them. Both of them are accurate. Also, the first, clearly states, in the end, that other accounts that appeared in newspapers were incorrect. The comparison with Santos-Dumont is just to underline the idea that Wright Brothers deserved same fame as Dumont, that time, in 1903, worldwide known for his flights in airships (balloons with engines). (Santos-Dumont decided to build a plane later, in 1906. The article in "Dayton Daily News" on Dec 18 , 1903 has nothing to do with Santos' plane from 1906.)

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)

How could an unqualified man have designed and built an engine in 6 weeks?!

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)

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. There are three witnesses plus Whitehead who say the Wrights visited his shop several times during that period. He also said their engine was nearly identical to his, in addition to other ideas of Whitehead's that he discussed with them. So this answers that question. AviationHist1 (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am curious: What source says that Whitehead said the Wrights visited him, and what source says that Whitehead said the Wright engine was nearly identical to his? DonFB (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I'd like to know that as well. If there was that clear cut a 1-2-3 connection, I think it would have been out in the open long before now. Ckruschke (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I quite understand that the brothers were not alone in investigating powered flight, but...

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.

...do you mean to suggest that Whitehead had reliably outfitted some number of motorised aeroplanes prior to his consultation with them?
--Patronanejo (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources to primary. A secondary source may be found in: Weissenborn, G.K.; "Did Whitehead fly?", Air Enthusiast 35, Pilot Press (1988), Pages 19-21 and 74-75. Here we are presented with evidence that he carried out a partially successful flight as early as 1899, using a steam-powered engine built and operated with the help of a local blacksmith. Whitehead soon became known as an accomplished machinist and took on several apprentices, receiving more orders for engines than he could meet and moving on to develop gasoline and diesel types, with a five-cylinder Diesel type said to have flown in 1902. Although the text is not specific that these are all aero engines, at least some must have been and all the examples but one mentioned in the text are aero engines (the one exception was used to power a ground-testing rig and never intended to fly).

Now to the Wright brothers. I quote: 'His flight success attracted attention and visitors, among them the Wright brothers. Though no firm date for the visit can be given, it appears that some time after the August flights they did see him. In Anton Pruckner's 30 October 1964 affidavit, he states: "I can also remember very clearly when the Wright brothers visited Whitehead's shop here in Bridgeport before 1903. I was present and saw them myself. I know this to be true because they introduced themselves to me at the time. ... The Wrights left here with a great deal of information..."' Other lesser primary sources and remarks follow, also indicating an 'exchange of correspondence'. Weissenborn at least makes the effort to be even-handed: '...it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say how much "information" was picked up by the brothers Wright, if any.' Some less complimentary remarks follow about the consistency of Orville's later 1945 remarks with such apparent facts, and about other detractors. There is no comment about the similarity or otherwise of the designs, but we may note that five-, six- and twelve-cylinder designs are mentioned and a two-cylinder type illustrated, quite beside the various types of combustion/ignition. This begs the question, similar to which Whitehead design and in what way or ways?

Thinking of Charlie Taylor, one can only speculate how "information" from various quarters, and perhaps some left-over parts or spares, might or might not have speeded his design and construction activities. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Wrights had a significant stash of precision-machined Whitehead parts, it would be normal to credit Taylor with the "design and construction" of the engine as a whole.

Don't know how much that helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is conjecture. Orville Wright totally denied ever meeting Whitehead. Nobody has convincingly traced the Wright brothers' engine work to Whitehead's influence. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think Weissenborn would be the first to agree with you (though not perhaps with Orville). Note my quote from him in the above account: '...it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say how much "information" was picked up by the brothers Wright, if any.' (my emphasis). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In 1908, the Wright Brothers' planes were not the best in he world

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)

Doubtful claim "Rotating wing concept discovered by Wright Brothers"

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)

In your unseemly and thoughtless haste to attempt to delete another passage from this article, you fabricate a quotation in the title of this Talk section, and you make a claim about what a citation in the article "does not demonstrate," basing these ideas on a false premise which exists merely in your imagination about the article. The text in this section of the article does not include either the word "discover" or the word "first" regarding the Wrights' insight into propeller action. The article text, footnoted, simply explains what the Wrights "concluded" about propellers. If you would like to specify a reliable source (with page number or url) that explains such insight was reached earlier by another investigator, please do so, and the text of this article could be modified to say something like, "...although [name of person] had previously come to the same conclusion/similar conclusion about propellers in [year/decade/era]."[footnote] DonFB (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Such insight was self evident in the time of Wright brothers as long as the terminology "Les ailes du Moulin (the wings of the windmill)" had already been in existence for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

L'Aeronaute, A14, N1, January 1881 (see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k58241536/f22.image.r=helice%20tatin.langEN ) "Une hélice est un plan qui tombe circulairement et continuellement, tandis que l'aile est un plan qui tombe alternativement." Translation - "A propeller is a plane (surface) that moves circularly and continuously while a (flapping) wing is a plane that moves alternately." In conclusion, long before WB started to build planes somebody in an aeronautical journal had already had the insight that a propeller is in fact a wing that rotates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: citations

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)

Proven Wright Brother's powered flights are facts only starting with 1908

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)

Ah. Your true sentiments fully on display. You have a lot of published history to overcome. The odds seem poor. DonFB (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, good luck with that. You are tilting at windmills, now. There's little more we can do for you at this talk page. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Three-axis control was the weak not the strong point of Wrights' plane

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)

Your premise falls apart on the rocks of mainstream consensus. For instance, Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith emphasizes (in every book he wrote mentioning the Wrights) that the key to the Wright Flyer was its control system which enabled the Wrights to get control of the air sooner than their peers. A handful of other aviation pioneers might have flown earlier than the Wrights if there had been an engine with more power versus weight, but this was not the case. The Wrights leaped into the air first because the could get the most performance from a relatively weak machine. Their control system gave them this advantage. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There were other engines with better power to weight ration than the Wright's. For instance Flugan was powered by an 10 hp/18 kg engine (0.55 hp/kg) and Number 21 had a 40 hp engine at 64 kg (0.74 hp/kg) while the Flyer had 12 hp and 77.3 kg (0.15 hp/kg). // Liftarn (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you are right. My point was that the most likely-to-fly aircraft were not hooked up to the highest powerful-to-weight engines, which might have allowed a more stable, less high-spirited design to be first to make a fully controlled flight. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no mainstream consensus.

I quote from the Wikipedia article about Wright Brothers, "Modern analysis by Professor Fred E. C. Culick and Henry R. Jex (in 1985) has demonstrated that the 1903 Wright Flyer was so unstable as to be almost unmanageable by anyone but the Wrights, who had trained themselves in the 1902 glider.[61]". This comes in total contradiction with "the key to the Wright Flyer was its control system which enabled the Wrights to get control of the air sooner than their peers." which I guess is the personal opinion of one Wikipedia editor as long as I do not find the statement as being written by a known author.

How could an unstable plane have helped its builders to be the first in the air?! Where is the proof that a naturally unstable flying machine, equipped with means to stabilize it by hand, needs a weaker engine to get airborne?

Really, 24.203.73.246, you should be embarrassed by the title you gave this new Talk section. You may want to read added references in the article regarding the subject. You may also want to read a book, any book, about aviation history or the Wrights. DonFB (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to add more references ("Inventing a Flying Machine, The Breakthrough Concept","Wagging Its Tail, Inventing the Airplane", "Aviation, From Sand Dunes to Sonic Booms") but they bring nothing new as long as they do not quote any sources. The text "The brothers' fundamental breakthrough was their invention of three-axis control" appears in dozens of places on the net and it is no more than just a claim.

Oh, I see, you want the sources to quote sources (to quote sources, to quote.....). Learn how Wikipedia works. These are reliable sources (Smithsonian, NPS, Library of Congress, wright-bros.org, Crouch, Howard, Kelly, Gibbs-Smith, et al). Wikipedia articles are based on information contained in reliable pre-existing sources such as these. Wikipedia is not obligated to "prove" facts to someone's satisfaction. If you have contrary reliable sources that support your statements, speak up. Cite them. Failing that, your idiosyncratic doubts and disagreements are no match for 100 years of published history and are irrelevant to the method by which articles here are written. If you wish to present your original theories about the subject at hand, consider publishing a website, book or very long series of Tweets of your own. DonFB (talk) 09:22, 6 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)

Reliable sources agree that the WB were first to achieve heavier than air 3-axis control. Read a book. DonFB (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Old letters from the Wrights are primary sources. Scholarship on the topic of the Wright brothers takes these letters into account but does not rely on them exclusively. Other factors are important; facts that were not known to the Wrights, for instance. At any rate, what we use in this article are reliable WP:SECONDARY sources such as the Smithsonian Institution's article on the un-powered 1902 Wright glider which tells us about the "first fully controllable aircraft":

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 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)

Otto Lilienthal could control his glider on all three axes, with his body, and he flew before Wright Brothers. Quote, "German Otto Lilienthal(1848-1896), whose graceful and beautifully-constructed hang-gliders enable him to become the first man in the world to fly confidently and regularly, total more than 2000 flights. He did not develop control surfaces for his gliders, but rely on body movements to provide limited control in the three axes of pitch, yaw, and roll." (see, http://www.thaitechnics.com/fly/intro.html ). In conclusion, the stability and control issue for gliders, on all three axes, was already solved when Wright Brothers started their experiments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are arguing against our most reliable sources. You cite www.thaitechnics.com; a dubious website having no bearing on mainstream thought. To you point, though, Lilienthal's method of shifting body weight was not scalable in terms of greater motive power. The Wrights opened the door to powered flight, which is the whole point. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Who is the one that first said "The brothers' fundamental breakthrough was their invention of three-axis control"? When did this idea appear? Who had it? All the so called reliable sources that claim this do not point to any previous source. It is impossible to track the person who first attributed three axis control to Wright Brothers. One thing is sure (see the two letters quoted above) three axis control was not claimed by Wright Brothers as their invention and they could not pretend this in front of Chanute as long as Octave Chanute used Lilienthal’s three axis control method in 1896. "Chanute/Herring Glider. The 1896 glider built by Octave Chanute and Augustus Herring. Note the biplane wing layout, vertical struts, and bracing wires. As with Lilienthal’s glider, the pilot controlled the craft by shifting his body weight."(see http://airandspace.si.edu/wrightbrothers/fly/1899/breakthrough.cfm ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your friend Prof. Culick says of the Wrights, "Technically, their greatest fundamental achievement was their invention of three-axis aerodynamic control." (I like that; I may add it as a reference.) (http://authors.library.caltech.edu/11239/1/CULaiaaj03.pdf) He probably was not the first to say it, but it doesn't matter. Lilienthal, of course, most certainly had not, as you said, "solved" the problem of control and stability. Pilots today do not, as I think you know, labor to maintain control as Lilienthal did by swinging their torsos and legs fore-and-aft and side-to-side while hanging beneath their airplanes. DonFB (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

Not correct. Perhaps English is not your native language. The author is very complimentary to the WB, while also explaining difficulties they faced. You might have missed this: "The point, of course, is not to criticize the Wrights. On the contrary, our admiration for their marvelous accomplishments is increased when we understand more completely the contemporary state of aeronautics...." DonFB (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Prof Culick does not say good things about Wright Brothers. I quote from his article, (1)“the Wrights never completely understood quantitatively the problem of stability of rotational motions.”,(2)“the first powered flights were really powered and sustained level gliding flights following takeoffs.”(3)“Combination of the lateral instability with the pitch instability makes flying the 1903 Flyer an order of difficulty greater than riding a bicycle.”(4)“it seems that they were always very close to the stalled condition. Although they knew they had to maintain some minimum speed, in the vicinity of 27–28 mph, the fact that they really did not understand the phenomenon of stalling and why it occurred probably hindered their progress. They seem not to have been aware that the canard could stall as well, with consequent loss of control power in pitch.”,(5)“They were severely handicapped in understanding the problems they discovered because they were not aware of methods based on analyzing the moments acting on the aircraft in flight.”(6) “The basis for their patent, granted in 1906 and never broken, was their two-axis control of lateral motion, in general, not for their particular aircraft design, and not including pitch control.”(7) “It is certainly true that if not the Wrights, somebody else would have invented the airplane in the early years of the 20th century. Bleriot was closest to having all of the practical pieces in place by 1908—except for three-axis control, which he learned from the Wrights.”(8) “The aircraft is seriously underpowered, and to take off in winds roughly 75% of cruise speed is rarely attempted with any airplane.”, Source: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/11239/1/CULaiaaj03.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Right. It's scholarly technical analysis, not unfriendly sentiment. Culick has worked on Wright replica programs for some 30 years. He's highly favorable to them, but he also offers detailed engineering insight into the limitations of their knowledge. Wright bashers, on the other hand, like to criticize them for not possessing aeronautical knowledge that only came years and decades later. DonFB (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It is true Culick says that Wright Brothers, like all others in their time, did not have the aerodynamic knowledge we possess today. However, Culick, based on his research, appreciates that, "flying the 1903 Flyer was an order of difficulty greater than riding a bicycle", "The aircraft is seriously underpowered" which really means that Flyer I could not be flown by a human being. Also, Culick notes, "the Flyer is nearly unflyable if the rudder is Žfixed.". This is a serious drawback if one wants to go straight line. There is no reason to steer the rudder left - right just to fly along the same direction. You complicates your life as a pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Fixed" rudder means "unable to move," not "undeflected". Two humans did fly the underpowered airplane, as you well know. DonFB (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Culick explains that if someone wants to fly straight line with "1903 Flyer I" he has to control roll constantly by hand not only by warping the tips of the wings (it is not enough) but also by moving the rudder left and right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So what? DonFB (talk) 21:38, 8 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)

Nonsense. The mainstream, widespread, global viewpoint on the matter is that the Wrights were able to fly their plane in December 1903. Read the literature and you will see. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That mainstream does not exist. There are a few pro Wright Brothers historians that repeat what the brothers claimed about their 1903 powered flights, starting only from the premise the two inventors told the truth. Experimentalists, people who really wanted to verify the accuracy of Wright Borthers' claims, like Prof. Fred Culick, Jack Cherne, Major Mike Jansen, Capt. Tim Jorris, etc., reached, based on tests, the conclusion that "1903 Flyer I" was not flyable. Despite considerable efforts to reproduce the 1903 airplane nobody was able to come close to replicating the 57-59 seconds flight allegedly performed on December 17, 1903. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are good quotes. I'd make one change to your comment: from "the idea is" that they didn't fly to: "my idea is" that they didn't fly. It's interesting: back in those days, people thought flying was impossible and refused to believe it had been done. Obviously, that attitude still exists today, as seen in your comments. DonFB (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Stable flight was definitely possible in 1903. Three experiments made by Samuel Langely in 1896, with a model plane having a weight of 11.4 kg (quite big flying machine) demonstrated that airplanes could fly alone long distances (700, 1005 and 1460 meters), without losing their (natural) stability. (see: http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19050002000 ). Wright Brother's 1903 plane replica could not be flown more that 115 feet (in 2003) even controlled by a pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Stable flight was possible in 100,000 B.C. Controlled flight, even in an unstable machine, was not achieved until 1903. Modern research on the WB is illuminating, but does not prove the kind of fraud and conspiracy theory about them that exists in your mind. DonFB (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If by "controlled flight" you mean the behavior that can be seen in the videos posted under the title "2003 replica of Dec. 17, 1903 plane couldn't do more than short hops" (see above) then I agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad you agree. DonFB (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wright flights were all failures on Dec. 17, 1903. So says the data. You who treat it as a religion a belief system are causing Wikipedia to earn its very bad name so that no one may safely reference it. A bunch of opinionated people trying to control history against the tide. Read the William J. Hammer papers for a view on what really was happening to promote the Wrights for the purpose of their lawsuit. A pioneer invention gains a broader patent so presto they were "first". AviationHist1 (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Janes and controversy over who flew first should be here too

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)

There really is no controversy. This matter was settled decades ago and people who keep trying to give Whitehead bling at the expense of the Wrights keep getting egg-on-their-face ie Stella Randolph, Major O'Dwyer(who should know better), Albert Zahm and Whitehead supporters most recently the [redacted]. That the discussion about controversy is on the Whitehead article, is no matter to the Wright Brothers article. There's already a neutral controversy site with the claimants for numerous first flight pioneers through the centuries. The whole reason that Whitehead is discussed is on the speculation that he flew in 1901 which has been conclusively disproven, even by Whitehead's wife who said she never saw not one of his powered machines fly. Jane's is a magnificent publication with a flawed or in the words of Dr. Crouch, 'hoodwinked' editor easily swayed by the guy from Australia. Since the Langley Aerodrome was disproven to be flyable by the 1930s, the only other viable American or person living in America as a contender the Wrights first flight was Whitehead and that's why Stella Randolph dredged him up from the forgotten corner of aviation history. The closest person to probably come close to equaling the Wrights at the time was Richard Pearse out of New Zealand with a gravity controlled powered glide from an incline. This wouldn't constitute a sustained flight as Orville outlined. Pearse however couldn't remember the dates of his trials which he himself said was about 1904 and which recent historians now try to move back to 1903 or possibly 1902. Koplimek (talk) 15:36, 28 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)

Yep, "hoodwinked", and if that doesn't suit you, then "bamboozled". Jane's is going to eventually look stupid replacing facts with historical inaccuracies especially in printed annual editions of their All's the World Aircraft. As with the Smithsonian secretaries concerning the Wright Controversy, this matter won't be rectified until a new knowledgeable editor is hired. Jane's as famous as it is, is not canon at least in my opinion. They never were with me, not with their Jane's All the World's Aircraft or Jane's Fighting Ships . Orville Wright and his family put stringent stipulations with the Smithsonian concerning the 1903 Flyer because they knew future Wright-detractors would arise. It's but so much Orville can do from the grave, but what he could also count on is the nhuge pro-Wright faction which will continue to applaud Wright Brothers and their invention of the airplane, particularly people on the world wide web.Koplimek (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop using the Wright article as a platform for controversy

• I'd like to see this end on the Wright article. It seems people are burning the late night oil wishing wishing hoping hoping that some mysterious magical person will surface before 1903 and prove the Wrights were not first. Why is there a whole paragraph, section to competing claims, ongoing controversy etc.? Those should be sections of debate in the 'Early flying machines' section. Please no more, arguments about Santos, Whitehead, when issues concerning both have long since been settled. The article is not for that. In the intro paragraph readers are alerted to the competing claims section title 'Early Flying Machines'.Koplimek (talk) 00:34, 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 lists Whitehead in a section called "The Soarers or Gliders" and says nothing about him flying in 1901, let alone flying with an engine installed and a man aboard, under free control. All Cochrane allows to Whitehead is that motorized "experiments... were sufficiently satisfying that another is being built." Cochrane goes on to say that Whitehead and all the others have been "outdone" by the Wrights. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 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)

Cochrane does not say that Whitehead and the motor were both on the airplane at the same time. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Tomticker wrote:

"Since the controversy over who flew first still exists, but seems to be conducted mostly on the Whitehead article..."

Whitehead is mostly notable because of the controversy about him, not for what he did. It makes sense that much text in his article is about the controversy surrounding his aeronautical work, which is discussed almost exclusively by his researchers, not by established aviation historians and scholars. Those historians and scholars don't debate or doubt the fundamental facts of the Wrights' accomplishments. So the WB article appropriately assigns the general "first flight" controversy (mentioning the other notable "contenders" as well) to a small section, along with a link to the Early Flight article. DonFB (talk) 16:27, 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)

I'm not surprised that your comments above remain and mine have been subsequently removed. Actually, Cochrane inserted Wilbur's entire article from Scientific American that ends with; "Our experiments are not yet completed, but we feel confident of delivering to the world in no great stretch of time a completely practical flying-machine for every-day use".Tomticker5 (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that either of the Wright Brothers ever wrote to Scientific American until Orville's 1908 article. So it's news to me that they would make such a claim, even though they knew more work had to be done. The 1904 'mention' of the Dec. 17 flights are from the Virginian Pilot article pieced together by reporters who got the facts incorrect. The first account of any of the Wrights flights was Amos Root's Gleanings in Bee Culture, January 1905.Koplimek (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2013

Wright Brothers: Orville Wright Wilbur Wright 139.192.72.169 (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: No edit requested. Begoon ^talk 11:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Experimenting with foreplane vs. tailplane and even both

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)

Aha, found it at last. It's Culick, "The Wright Brothers: First Aeronautical Engineers and Test Pilots" [1] - there's a set of photos on Page 1003. (Just in case anybody's watching) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The ever-informative Nick Engler has a page about the "transitional" Wright model "AB". http://www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Facts/Airplanes/Model%20_AB.htm DonFB (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with Haskell

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)

This article has a bunch of errors

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)

Your entire thread is either opinion or an outright falsehood. I'm not sure who you are railing on, but you better have strong references to back up any edits on this page because you are "at best" a voice in the wilderness without reputable scholarship and history on your side... Ckruschke (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

This is just noise from an admirer of Alberto Santos-Dumont who flew in 1906. Certainly the Wright brothers are celebrated today for their fine control. They were the first to fly a manned, powered, controllable, flyable aircraft a significant distance in 1903, and they were the first to make a complete circle, landing where they took off. The complaint about having no control is false. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wright Brothers were the first to fly only according to their own unsubstantiated claims. As long as there is absolutely no evidence their plane took off, and even more, no evidence they really had a motorized airplane in December 1903, allow us, people who do not believe in mythological events, not to thrust the word of Wright Brothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)