Talk:First flying machine

Split from "Early flying machines"

This article is from a reorg/rewrite/split from an earlier version of Early flying machines. See Talk:Early flying machines. --A D Monroe III 02:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add sections for specific claims?

This article has no specifics, yet. Starting my listing the claims to first flying machines by name is flame bait. I first wanted to establish the ground rules (mostly, that there is no single answer). This is now done.

Now, the sections on specific disputed claims from other articles can be moved and added to this article at the end, so all the different claims can be contrasted and listed together, with a fair NPOV. See Alberto Santos-Dumont, Sir George Cayley, Clement Ader, Otto Lilienthal, Wright brothers, Louis Blériot and everyone else's local heroes.

Please, step right in. Go ahead. Really. Okay. Yeah. Uh, hello? Anybody there? Sigh.

--A D Monroe III 03:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have to find those who are in favour of those individuals :) --Fred chessplayer 10:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed one Wright brothers reference. I'm reluctant to add their name before any others are added. This shouldn't be a "Wright brothers vs. everyone else" contest, as it implies their claims are equal to all others combined. Besides, the "Western World" doesn't agree on the Wright brothers; most Europeans have their own favorites. --A D Monroe III 01:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are of course correct. The reason why I made the mistake is because the article lacks concrete examples. --Fred chessplayer 12:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The move

It has been a nice split of article. One thing that now strikes me -- and I didn't think of this until today unfortunately -- an even more appropriate title for this page might be "First flying machine controversy" , or "Flying machine controversy" which shows that this page tries to explain a controversy. --Fred chessplayer 11:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. As is, it works a little better for most links. There are many other articles that cover disputed claims without any amendment to their title. Again, I eventually hope to cover all of the "first flying machines" in this article. --A D Monroe III 01:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, really interesting. But shouldn't there be a place in the article at an attempt to assess which is the best claim at "first flying machine?" It might be an interesting project to do competing hypotheses testing? Because the title of the article sort of promises to inform the reader about the "first" flying machine, not just to discuss the controversy. I think it's a great article as is, but without some sort of assessment maybe the article should be renamed "flying machine controversy" or something like that as suggested by A D Monroe III above. Binkymagnus 00:54, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Additions

The page now has a list of 'First' Claimants, as well as sections on what might constitute a first.

What needs to be done now is combine these two - How the various achievements of these claimants relates to the various criteria for firsts.

---

I wrote a well considered and well researched section here about Whitehead and his aeroplane number 21.

This was reverted without any explanation, without any argument, by a user called Matthew. Unless he explains himself I don't think he has the right to delete my work. I revert back to my version and I expect an explanation if he deletes it again.

Please read all material on the web about Whitehead and other pioneers before you change what I have written.

Before I wrote about Whitehead this page looked like beating around the bush forever, it looked like somebody has tried to avoid the real issues by adding all kinds of confusing issues. In other places in en/wikipedia it says about Whitehead that "he claimed to have flown", totally ignoring the fact that three newspapers published articles about the event, and at least one journalist was personally present.

Roger4911 09:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Good initiative. The reason why the article was/is "beating around the bush" was because it was split off from List of early flying machines, where it didn't belong, and hasn't really been remodelled yet.

However, the section does not belong here. The scope of this article is to outline the controversy, not the definite answer (if there is one). Your work is better suited on Gustave Whitehead. I would suggest that in this article, we only keep this:

It seems that the first published flight with an aeroplane heavier than air propelled by its own motor was Gustave Whitehead's flights in August 1901, published in the New York Herald, and the Bridgeport Herald

Regards, Fred-Chess 14:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. To keep the current NPOV, any lengthy info on Whitehead added here would have to be balanced with equivalent details on all the other claimants. This is a notable task, so this article has been stuck at the "bush-beating" phase for that reason. Perhaps we can start with a single sentence from each, as Fred Chess suggests. --A D Monroe III 14:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I accept the very short entry suggested by Fred. But I don't see anything wrong with a more extensive entry either. I think people use encyclopedias to get to know more about something, or find an explanation for something. So a little more information is okay, as long as it is written from a neutral point of view and is relevant. In this case the entry can be seen as controversial by a lot of people, who have not studied the issue, and that could be a reason for a more extensive explanation. Roger4911 18:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have already agreed to the replacement suggested by Fred, but I changed the article now, just to show a structure where we could outline the situation taking up a few of the contenders, writing a little about all of them, but most about the top names. We could order them after ranking, so to speak. First a long text about Whitehead, because his position needs explanation, then a shorter about Ader, then the Wright brothers, and a few more.

Well, this is just a suggestion from me, and the article as it is now is an example of what I mean. Go ahead and do what you like, Fred :-) Roger4911 19:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I am just developing this version as long as you others are out. I don't know what you think about such invitations to develop the text I have left, to me it looks okay, and it reminds people of the nature of wikipedia. Roger4911 20:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry about reverting your previous edit. It provided much good information, yet it basically stated that Whitehead was the first, even thought many other people would make just as strong a claim that others were the first, and was thus somewhat POV. We should at least have a section under each of the claimants names, evaluating how what they did meets the various criteria for "first flight". The criteria for what counts as first flight is just as important as what some individual actually did - there is much debate as to the criteria, and at the end of the day it might be possible to claim that any number of people achieved the "first flight", simply based on what one counts as flight. The information on Whitehead is good, but should be better placed in the article, and written in a NPOV manner. Sorry about just reverting it, but I guessed the text would still be there to access, which it was. - Matthew238 00:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Roger, I'd recommend you add the information to article Gustave Whitehead yourself. If I did it, the entry would be attributed to my name in the history of the page, and I think that's not fair... // Fred-Chess 13:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Flight in mythology

• Daedalus, Crete, probably mythical human powered flight with feathered wings — 1300 BCE
• Anonymous, Chang'an, the first human in the air with feathery wings — 19 [1]
• Yuan Huangtou, Ye, first succeed manned kite glide from hathpace — 559 [2]
• Abbas Ibn Firnas, Al-Andalus, first scientific attempt glide — 875

I added Daedalus to this list, but it was reverted because his was only a mythological acheivement. It seems the next three are just as unverifiable--in particular the anonymous pilot from the Book of Han. I think Ibn Firnas should be the cutoff, or we should include other mythical fliers. Tafinucane 23:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, they were alot of mythological "acheivement" on flight thoughout the world dated back c. 3,000-2,000 BCE, plus the date on the list should be exact, not circa. And no, the next three are not as unverifiable as your addition and we can't declined that Eiorgiomugini

Scope of the entire claim

Scope of the entire claim

I see the scope of claim has changed from what inventors and scientists classically has seen as necessary for claiming to have invented something.

Earlier the demands were simple: Build a working machine and demonstrate it with enough witnesses present or other ways to reliably prove that the machine worked.

The demands in this case, for a flying machine, heavier than air, propelled by its own motor, are pretty clear by definition.

Now I can learn from this wikipedia page that you also have to build up a whole industry to be recognized as the inventor of the aeroplane.

You added marketing skills to the demands for being recognized as the inventor.

Why don't we add one more demand to that list: Shrewdness, the ability to get information from other inventors, without giving out any, the ability to do the lawyer work, to file patents, to convince people in power positions, bribe the right people, etc..

We have proof that the Wright brothers visited Whitehead in his workshop at least twice, and he thought they were going to finance his aeroplanes. Other inventors were very angry at the Wright brothers for claiming the honor for what others had done before them.

Excuse me, but this page has smelled a certain attitude from the beginning. If you can no longer be best, don't tell who was best, say nothing, beat around the bush, and then when somebody fills in the inevitable, redefine the rules so you are the best again. I am sure it has not been intentional, but that doesn't change the impression it gives.

Read the papers on both sides, Whitehead contra Wright, and you will see how the people who write articles against Whitehead are usually showing their own lack of knowledge, lack of logic, lack of studying the pro-Whitehead papers. Anybody with a scientific and technical education can see how a pro-Wright lobby has been able to uphold the idea that Wrights were first, using strange arguments, ignoring evidence, history by contract, etc..

Whitehead is supported by the strongest evidence for demonstrating the first motorized aeroplane which didn't crash and wasn't totally uncontrollable, and his plane didn't need a catapult and strong headwind to get up in the air.

He did three or four flights 14 august 1901, one of them was 800m at 15m height. His plane was safe, it landed on any free flat surface, or on water.

He had flown motorized before, but one flight ended in a crash and there are fewer witnesses to that flight. Note that he was an experienced glider pilot, and there is a photograph of him in the air in a 3-decked glider. Maybe that is why he didn't put a rudder on his aeroplane shaped and constructed like a boat. He had no need for it at that stage, he had the plane under control without it. His plane was also inherently more stable than Wright brothers design.

Whitehead's plane flew slower, more like a parachute than later aeroplanes. That made it suitable for private use, going to work by aeroplane for example. He could land on very short landing strips, as the plane worked a little like a parachute.

If this controversy was not in the way, if nobody had seen a plane like Whitehead's before, I bet you could produce his model 21 today, with a few obvious enhancements, as a safe and slow commuter transport.

It could be used to go from the suburb to the work in the center of the city. A short landing strip for whiteheads, motorized parachutes, autogiros and helikopters is all that's needed. A 50-100m long strip, or an empty street, is enough for a whitehead.

I just made his design into a type of aeroplane, that is okay, I think. His plane had a different design than later planes which needed high speed to be controllable. That also explains why it was much more stable in the air than for example the Wrights design.

Whitehead built aeroplanes like boats, with the sails turned to horisontal position. (That makes it even more mysterious why he didn't add a rudder. But okay, birds do not have rudders and birds were still the ideals for many aeroplane inventors.)

He had no thickness in his wings. He didn't rely on the theory about shaped wings where the air flows faster on the top side generating lift. He moved air downwards instead, like a sailing ship uses the sails to move air to the side, which lifts the airplane, if only the motor is strong enough.

One of his critics said it was suspect that Whiteheads motors went towards less good weight to power ratio as he developed them. I would say it was natural. At first he needed to get a plane to fly at all, and the motor weight was very important. Later he knew how to build planes that could fly he could afford a lower ratio to get more power in total instead.

He could also use safer and more reasonable fuels than than acetylene and peroxide which was used in 1901.

A plane that works aerodynamically can carry the pilot, the motor and the mechanical construction of the plane, and maybe some load too, then the motor weight is less important.

Remember that Whitehead had built and flown an aeroplane with two persons on board a few years earlier, which ended in a crash because they did not manage to fly over a 3 story building. So his aeroplanes could carry some load.

Whitehead also put a motor on a 3 decked glider, so he experimented with aerodynamically shaped planes too, but the number 21 was something between an aeroplane and a motorized parachute. Roger4911 11:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You're saying that most claims involving the Wrights are wrong. Isn't that a point of view?

Roger replies:

Everything you say is a point of view, an encyclopedia should contain as correct points of views as possible, based on research, knowledge and a sound and unbiased judgement. You cannot write an encyclopedia without ever taking a stand, telling the readers the most likely truth. If you did the whole encyclopedia would consist of mumbo-jumbo of the same sort as what filled this page before I started changing it. It would be totally useless, and it would the most boring and meaningless encyclopedia ever produced. Roger4911 04:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Monroe continues:

It doesn't matter what you or I think is a better claim, or how well we argue for or against a claim. Even if you or I could gather information to prove one claim over another, that wouldn't belong in Wikipedia, because it would be original research.

The claims for the Wrights exist. The claims for others exist. Wikipedia reports those claims in their respective articles, as a good encyclopedia must. This article, alone, gives reasons on why there are so many conflicting claims.

Specifically, you seem to have a issue with marketing being a help in being recognized as the inventor. Are you saying it shouldn't be a help, or isn't one? Some people say that the Wrights are recognized only because of how they promoted their invention. Do you disagree? If marketing helped some claims, or the lack of it hurt others, then adding marketing can explain why there are conflicting claims. We should remove marketing only if no claim was affected by marketing.

--A D Monroe III 00:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If you write an article about who invented something, there is no marketing needed at all, he or others just need to prove he invented it.

To be recognized in the eyes of the world after a hundred years you may need more qualifications, like being a weasel and a con man, and use bribes and other tricks, especially if you live in a country where money and gangster methods work better than being honest.

Do you want to add one more demand, to be tricky and dirty enough to fool the world that you did something others actually did?

They were said to be rascals, and they were tricky and ruthless, that is said from many, in similar wordings, to have caused their celebrity as the inventors of the aeroplane.

Using your own argumentation, why don't you include that too, as a qualification for taking the honor for what others had already done? It is equally well documented as the marketing as one important factor why they could take the honor for inventing the aeroplane. "History by contract" fits well into this point, as well as the words of Whitehead when the Wright brothers left his workshop after their second visit:

"Now I have told them all I know, and I bet those rascals will never finance my aeroplane anyway." (from a workshop helper affidavit)

But, of course, we are no longer talking about inventions in the technical meaning of the word, we are talking now about what is needed to be successful in USA. The mind of a gangster and good lawyers, or something like that. A father who is a bishop, maybe?

And for your talk about original research, I have only used facts from other literature, available on internet for all to see, there is no original research here,I'm just putting together facts from other sources. Roger4911 04:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Scope of the Scope

Calling a spade a spade, I think this whole issue revolves around the Wright Brothers and attempts to discredit them that began when both were still alive. Clearly, theirs was not the first flying machine, broadly defined. The issue that raises temperatures, in my opinion, is whether they deserve credit as inventors of the first successful airplane. I believe the answer is yes. They took the pictures to prove it. They made over 100 flights in 1904-05. They dazzled the world with demonstrations in France and Washington in 1908. Claims and evidence for all other contenders pale in comparison. Ader may have lifted one or two wheels a few inches off the ground. Whitehead may or may not have flown; he certainly did not develop a successful airplane. Maxim proved a huge engine could propel a huge machine to liftoff speed. Herring put a compressed air engine on a hang glider (1898). The list goes on. None of these men deserves credit for inventing a successful, practical airplane. That credit goes to the Wright Brothers. A handful of Europeans and Curtiss in America were indeed flying by 1908, but the Europeans could barely make their craft turn, and Curtiss did it only because he successfully adapted wing-warping, a process the Wrights patented in 1906, based on their discoveries from 1900 to 1903. In the "marketing" category, the Wrights were only slightly better than inept. They didn't get worldwide recognition because they were good at marketing. They won fame in spite of their bumbling efforts to lock in a contract. They won fame because their airplane was the real thing, far advanced in its control features than anything anywhere else. That is why they deserve credit as successful airplane inventors. They didn't fly first; a bunch of other people and machines went aloft first: Lilienthal, Pilcher, Herring, Langley's model Aerodrome, to name a few. None of them did what the Wright Brothers did first: invent a successful airplane. DonFB 4.227.254.28 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem confused on marketing. Marketing is quite different from developing a business. While the Wright brothers may not have been good business people in selling their ideas (and in getting contracts) they were clearly good marketers. Or are you telling me successfully demonstrating your flight with "dazzling demonstrations" (as you call them) is anything but brilliant marketing? Marketing is about developing recognition and the way to do that is to get everyone talking about you which the Wright brothers clearly did with their "dazzling demonstrations". The fact of the matter is that the Wright brothers clearly marketed their flying machine much better then anyone else before them. Whether this was because their product worked a lot better then others or because they had the money/brains to do so or whatever is up for debate but anyone who ignores the fact is missing the point. Most other earlier inventors only made one or a few demonstrations and didn't attract much attention to their demonstrations where the Wright brothers made many demonstrations and attracted a LOT of attention. Nil Einne 11:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm....you make an interesting point, though I stick to my essential view on the matter. My thinking is chiefly influenced by the egregious delay the brothers allowed to occur from the time of their final long flights at Huffman Prairie and their long-awaited official demonstration flights more than two and a half years later. I'll agree their marketing tactics were reasonably sound--when they finally got around to it. Their airplane and their skill enabled them to make many demonstrations that outshone all other aviators--but their long delay up to that point allowed others like Farman, Curtiss, Santos-Dumont and Delagrange to make big strides and big headlines, while the Wrights remained elusive, reclusive oddball mysteries.You said that earlier inventors "didn't attract much attention to their demonstrations". That is true (except for Langley, though he didn't want the attention), but the flights of the other men I have mentioned generated huge publicity while the Wrights were nowhere to be seen. I'll agree that marketing is about "developing recognition," but the time the brothers wasted writing letters and criss-crossing the Atlantic sacrificed the undisputed recognition they could easily have claimed years ahead of everyone else. Had they delayed only six more months, for example, they might never have been enshrined as inventors of the airplane. On the other hand, if they had been a bit more flexible and less suspicious of the outside world (a trait they copied from their father), they could certainly have had the world at their feet much sooner and perhaps prevented the later patent war with Curtiss and also done much to avoid what became an onslaught of pernicious (and continuing!) second-guessing about who truly flew first. 4.227.252.73 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC) DonFB

Santos-Dumont

It seems a wee bit POV to me: who may be unaware of a 1.300 foot Wright Brothers flight without a catapult near Dayton in August 1904, to be the first to take off, fly, and land. The discussion is not about knowing or not this flight, but recognize it, since this flight was documented by the time -- if it really happened -- mostly by Wrights´ employees, and just made public months later. Tonyjeff 20:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

---the fact is that santos took off the ground not a hill without catapults and rails and the yflew their airplane they didnt just glide it. here is some more evidence for those nonbelievers: The New York Times of December 17, 1951 published the declaration of Alpheus Drinkwater, the telegrapher who sent the message ushering the Wrights’ flights of December 17, 1903, in which he told that on that day – December 17, 1903 – the Wright brothers only “glided”, and their first real flight came on May 6, 1908 (Santos flew in 1906).

Well, the photograph of Dec 17, 1903 shows the airplane flying using an engine, not gliding. It has just taken off from the rail, on a flat surface, without a catapult. So Drinkwater's memory of the event 48 years later may be a little cloudy. Keep in mind that Drinkwater was not an eyewitness, so he may just have been mixed up. I invite you to look at the Wikipedia article on the Wright Brothers, which includes a photograph of Orville flying over Huffman Prairie near Dayton in 1904. The Wrights made dozens of flights there without a catapult from May to September 1904. Or read any of the biographies of the Wrights (see the article's Reference section), which include information about eyewitnesses to the flights at Huffman Prairie in 1904-05. Or visit the U.S. Library of Congress online http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/p?pp/ils:@FILREQ(@FIELD(CALL(+W85+W86))@FIELD(COLLID+wri))::SortBy=CALL (click Page 13 to begin) to see numerous photographs the Wright Brothers took of their flights at the Prairie in '04-'05. Elsewhere at the Library of Congress online, you can see and read images of the Wright Brothers' actual diaries and notebooks about their two years of flying at Huffman Prairie. Use this address http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/wright:@field(CALL+@od1(Diaries+and+Notebooks)) (Click item 12) The notebooks describe the flights and show the dates in Wilbur's handwriting. Perhaps, however, you believe the photographs, diaries and notebooks are fakes or hoaxes. If you do, then we have no basis for genuine discussion. Give Santos-Dumont his credit: he was brave, pioneering and determined. His Demoiselle was a beautiful airplane. But I advise you to remain rooted in the real world of photographs and evidence, which are abundant--and prove the Wrights flew in 1903, 1904 and 1905--and common sense, which is less common. 4.227.254.77 21:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC) -- DonFB

IN DECEMBER 17, 2003, AN ATTEMPT TO RE-ENACT THE ORIGINAL WRIGHT BROTHERS FLIGHT 100 YEARS LATER FLOPPED WHEN A REPLICA CRAFT COULDN’T GET OFF THE GROUND. THE CHEERS QUICKLY TURNED TO GROANS WHEN, AFTER THE PLANE APPEARED ABOUT TO LIFT OFF, IT FELL BACK AND SPUTTERED TO A STOP IN A MUDDY PUDDLE AT THE END OF THE TRACK.--- faithful brazillian

However, Faithful B. is not entirely faithful by failing to report the airplane was successfully flown briefly prior to December 17, as reported in an article about another mishap--http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:FH8I8F0PI-cJ:www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/11/26/flyer.crash.ap/index.html+replica+Wright+2003+successful&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3 4.227.254.0 21:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC) --DonFB

Ok, so why do we always see skis at the bottom of Wrights' "flight machine" of that period? Isn'n it because it needed a "little push" to take flight, be it a catapult, a flat surface or his employees? The mottor most probably only supported the gliding process rather than sustained the whole apparel. And about the 1903-1905 flights, they had almost no witnesses, most of them really suspects; not even Drinkwater who, as you said, might just have been mixed up, was there. By the other hand, Santos-Dumont made his flight in front of a enourmous French audience, with an apparel, 14-bis, which took of the ground (normal, not "flat surface"), by its own ways. Demoiselle, by its turn, was not simply "a beatiful airplane", but an airplane much more sophisticated than any ever made by the Wrights. --Tonyjeff 21:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the witnesses were "suspect". The Wrights gave a list of witnesses, which you may read at this web address -- http://home.dayton.lib.oh.us/archives/wbcollection/wbscrapbooks1/WBScr1Pag009a.jpg. You can argue about the Wright's skids and low engine power, but those arguments do not change the fact that the Wright brothers were flying airplanes for years before Santos made his first hop. I'm sure you don't seriously assert that circling flights, maintaining an altitude of 30 to 60 feet for more than half an hour, as the Wrights achieved in 1905, are motorized "gliding" flights. I have nothing negative to say about Santos-Dumont, but his best flights in the 14-bis—less than 30 seconds and less than 800 feet, with no turns and no circles—can hardly be considered more masterful or practical, or demonstrating an invention more capable, than the airplanes in which the Wright brothers flew, turned and circled more than 20 miles nonstop for more than a half-hour in 1905 and up to 5 minutes in 1904. DonFB 04:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Move this page?

This page is not about the first flying machine- there were flying machines before the Wright brothers, both lighter than air and unmanned.

This page should really be under something like:

'First manned heavier than air flying machine'

We're an encyclopedia darnit! We're supposed to be accurate!WolfKeeper 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wolfkeeper that this has nothing to do with the "first flight", but both this article and and the other one just talk about early flight attempts. The "First flying machine article" is just basically a list of early attempts. MERGE THEM! --TinMan 00:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Avion photograph

I do not think the photograph of the Avion (AderAvion3(1897).jpg) actually depicts the Avion "in flight" as indicated by the tooltip popup caption. It is doubtful that any shutter speed or photographic emulsion of the day was fast enough to completely "stop" the motion of the propellers. No background landscape can be seen, but the Avion, if it flew at all, remained extremely close to the ground; thus, some terrain should be visible. It is even possible this image shows a model of the Avion. I performed a search and found the same image in a couple of different places, but no verification the image is of the craft "in flight". Following the Wikipedia mandate to "be bold", I am changing the popup caption to simply read: "Ader Avion 3". If there is evidence claiming the photo shows the Avion "in flight", I would certainly like to know about it. 4.227.250.50 03:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC) DonFB

Merging with 'Early Flight'

I'm not sure which of the earlier entries is on this topic, rather than other moves. So I'm making a new beginning.

Undisputed human flight began with the Montgolfier brothers. Powered human flight is another matter - more exactly, self-powered flying machines, which a lighter-than-air baloon is not.

There needs to be some editing and exchange of material. 'Early flight' should include baloons, gliders and craft launched from catapults. Some of the material in 'Early Flight' needs to be moved here.

The job is best done by someone who knows a lot about the subject, rather than someone guessing on the basis of what's here (as I'd have to do, if I tried it, and I am not going to try it.)

A major re-edit might be considered. A 'frame' article on First Flight, referencing details on baloons, parachutes, gliders and self-powered flying machines.

--GwydionM 16:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article lacks on a consensus and became what people think about the subject, greatly lacking on a consensus and most of time becoming a dispute bteween people from different nationalities. If we cant match a consensus this page should be marked as NPOV. Alvaroludolf 11:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of this article. I believe the purpose is to provide brief descriptions of early "Flying Machines" and what each machine may have accomplished. I do not believe this article is intended to establish a consensus about anything. The whole idea is to show the readers varying "claims" about Flying Machines without attempting to reach agreement about the claims. Perhaps you have never seen the "hidden" comment which is included with this article. The comment is visible when you look through the Editing Window. Here is what the Comment says: <!-- Keep entries short, please. The point is to list the claims, not establish them. Lengthy descriptions go in their respective articles. --> DonFB 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I marked this with a NPOV discussed article for the refusal to accept the external help and need of weather conditions to make the Wrigth Flyer to lift off. Those entries should state why there is a debate on the first flying machine and specifically why the Wright Flyer is NOT universally claimed as the first flying machine, fact that people here try to hide, probably for nationalist reasons and by this failing on the NPOV aspect of this article. The Wright brothers do used external help from rails and demanded special conditions for their machine to fly and for this reason some claim that the Flyer is not the first flying machine. If we miss to state that then we should remove all the achievements that came after the Wrigth brothers since the article is forcing a view to the Wright brother's Flyer as the flawless first flying machine. I do not think that there is a consensus on this or that will ever be a consensus on this, contrary to what you say, and for this reason the NPOV mark. There is a good article about the conflict between Wrigth's Flyer x Santos Dumont's 14-bis under the article of Santos Dumont that I think succeeded in stating facts about this claim with as little POV as possible and it still marked as a NPOV discussed article. I would recommend reading it. Alvaroludolf 11:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. This article lacks a consensus because of NPOV, not in spite of it. There is no consensus in the world at large, and it would violate both NPOV and NOR to try and establish one here. --A D Monroe III 05:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually this article come and go with NPOV. Right now it is in a good and stable state but from time to time someone who defend a specific position come here and change something in a way or another inserting some bias on it. The POV warning is there from another time and could be removed but I doubt we are indeed free of POV interventions here. Anyway, look at the article history to have a better view of the problem. Alvaroludolf 12:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please specify here on the talk page actual senences from the article that you take issue with. The NPOV dispute cannot be resolved on such vauge claims as these. Dalf | Talk 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I could.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_flying_machine&diff=prev&oldid=95941510
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_flying_machine&diff=prev&oldid=101505416
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_flying_machine&diff=next&oldid=102672156
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_flying_machine&diff=next&oldid=103593580
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_flying_machine&diff=next&oldid=106741802
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_flying_machine&diff=next&oldid=106968239

As you can see (and you can see because you were part of this controversy from the beginning so I don’t understand why you ask me to specify the phrase(s) that made this a POV article) we have failed to establish what was the actual achievement credited to Wright Brothers and why they are not universally clamed as the “fathers of aviation”. If they actually did all that North American history said they did them there is no reason to put any entry in the list after them. Brazilian history, on the other hand, (and I am not citing some European history) claims that the “father of aviation” was Santos Dumont because he was the first to fly on a plane that didn’t needed any external help, like rails, strong headwind (or any kind or wind) or catapults and because his achievement was a public presentation with the participation of media and other engineers from that time but two years later.

The dispute is that we should mark the Wright Flyer as a huge step in the flight history by making the first sustained flight with a machine heavier than air, and the contribution they made to the other “flyers” but if people fail to accept that there are flaws in the claim that Wright Brothers was the father of aviation then we have a POV. Wright brothers mastered the flight but failed in the lift off.

This POV is a tough one to solve as I can see because it involve nationalism.

AS I SAID BEFORE, the actual state of the article seems in good shape and lacking on any POV since it states what was the achievement on each inventor. Perhaps you should read what I said before stating that I was… “vague”. Alvaroludolf 13:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV notice ("be bold !") as the current article seems even-handed.--Thomas Arelatensis 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

GIVE UP

I don´t know why some people even discuss about the wright brothers myth. This is North American proud against world logic, it´s unstopable. Some centuries after the political and economical pressure of USA vanish we will be able to see the truth clearly in the news. But today a claim of flight without proof made by an american is worth thousands of documented and proofed claims made by an obscure brazillian of an obscure Brazil. People will even go further and use rethoric to "fix" history and keep the American Proudness Myth of being the inventors of the aircraft. They NEED it, and they are powerfull enought to get it. Any other dispute like this that, for one, involved two obscure inventors of two some african country would be resolved by giving the title to the one who was able to PROVE his claim, but when the claim involves an Roman (err... American) citizen, he doesnt need proofs. An brazillian citizen.

What the hell are you saying? If you would read the articles you would know that the Wright brother flight was just the first documented and had witness. As such it is just the first known. So what is there to arguee? Uber555 09:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I almost forgot this isn't a forum. Uber555 12:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

All the "reportedly" stuff in the alleged pre-Wright flights speak for themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is without question that every modern aircraft today descends from the Wright Brothers', and that theirs is the first one with sufficient documentation, witnesses and explanation to really take the claim and establish the global state-of-the-art in flight. However, it is interesting to see how many others tried and may have succeeded in a limited way with flight. I have seen no evidence that the folks in New Zealand, Brazil, France or even Whitehead in Pittsburgh, PA, USA fully understood all aspects of flight, including coordinated turns, efficient wing and propeller camber, and stall recovery. But they may have succeeded at something by accident, so it is interesting to read this page. However, it is interesting how much of the evidence listed for the other flights only surfaced after the Wrights tried to enforce their patent (incidentally, the Wrights won every patent case), so sometimes it's hard to separate the evidentiary wheat from chaff. (For example, Ader in France was widely known to have failed in flight contemporaneously, with all attempts ending in crashes and causing the French Army to write off the airplane entirely-- but 20 years later, history was re-written when they needed some claim against the Wright patents.) --Sam (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Cayley and Langley

I have checked many online sources and found nothing that supports the claim that Cayley achieved the "first sustained powered unmanned flight". I did find a reference[1]which says, "George Cayley built and tested a gunpowder engine in 1807, and in 1850 designed a model airplane powered by this means, but it was never built." Accordingly, I'm being bold and reverting both the claim for Cayley and the edit which withdrew this achievement from Langley in the article. If there is an authoritative source to support the claim for Cayley, I would like to see it. DonFB 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re. Cayley, You're absolutely right. He carried out sustained tests on his gunpowder engine, and THEN designed a glider to use that engine for unmanned powered flight, I conflated the two by mistake, thanx for catching that.

However, I'm not wholly happy with your charge to Pilcher - can we insert the word public before test?

As I've mentioned before, my study of Pilcher (including reading his diaries) reveals an almost insanely obsessive-compulsive man, who would never have flown something in public without testing it privately first.

His diaries have entries for 28th & 30th September which strongly imply he did successfully fly his beast (as he called it) but there is no proof either way

chrisboote 13:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to saying "intended public test," if that's what you mean. Are the diaries you've read published somewhere, to avoid the 'original research' issue? DonFB 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You can make an appointment to view them at Stanford Hall chrisboote 10:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Greek mythology

And what about the myth of Icarus? He, too supposedly took to the sky with wings, only to get too close to the sun, which caused his wings to melt and him to fall to earth. (Yeah, right - at high altitudes the air is even colder than at low altitudes, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story...) 204.52.215.107 23:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wilber Wrights 1905 24 mile, 39 minute flight?

Shouldn't this be included in the article? It is significant in that it re-affirms that the Wright Brother's aircraft was capable of controlled flight, as well as re-affirming that their 1903 flights weren't merely "glides", as some claim.98.16.80.99 07:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but it's "Wilbur." Wasn't that flight public as well (45 ppl or so)? If you can find some good sources, esp. newspapers and such, then it deserves a place under the Wrights' portion.Eccomi (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition of terms?

"Sustained", does that mean gliding down a slope 260 m ? "Controlled", does that mean barely controllable flight? "The bucking and veering that had hampered Flyers I & II" and III before late in 1905. A flight ending in a crash which damage the plane is a controlled flight? Have the meanings of these terms been established by somebody and been accepted by wikipedia? Do you have any other suggestions for how to define these terms when talking about airplanes? Roger491127 (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are you asking? Other wikipedians might have some ideas about definitions (as you seem to), but that would just be original research. The main point of this page is that there is no single agreed claim, much less agreement on terms that might define any such claim. If you know of some definitions that are widely recognized (verifiable, and therefore outside of Wikipedia, of course), it might be useful to include them here, but I don't really see how.

Is your goal to resolve all existing conflicting claims? That goal wouldn't be consistent with Wikipedia.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As a private pilot, I can share common vernacular which may or may not be "official". I believe a definition of "controlled flight" that is typical is where the pilot can positively affect all three axes (yaw, roll, and pitch), as well as throttle, and use them to intentionally maneuver the aircraft in the air. A plane is considered "stabilized" in flight training when its average climb/sink and heading is constant and under positive control. ("Bucking and veering" have nothing to do with it-- if you've ever taken a pilot's lesson in a tiny airplane you'll find that "bucking and veering" is still very much present in aircraft today.) One of the things the Wrights are also credited with is "coordinated flight" in which yaw and roll are changed together to keep the vector of force acting on the plane straight down (so that neither wing stalls before the other). Especially in the early days of flight when you're flying very close to stall speeds, uncoordinated flight (as was the case on all powered flight before the Wrights) could barely be called "controlled". As for "sustained", I think the standard definition is whether the plane has enough thrust to overcome its drag in level flight. --Sam (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting comments. Does "headwind" figure in the "sustained" definition as you have expressed it? DonFB (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, "headwind" doesn't matter at all in defining "sustained" flight. Once a plane is airborne the direction of the wind with respect to the ground becomes irrelevant... the plane is always traveling through the air forwards and the wind is always a headwind. From all my understanding in pilot training, "sustained" flight simply means that the powerplant can generate enough power so that the thrust of the plane is equal to the drag of the plane at some speed above stall speed. The Wright brothers were, according to many, many sources besides just "The Smithsonian" (who put THAT change in the page?!), the first to put together a powerful enough powerplant and high enough efficiency propeller for "sustained" and a sufficient mechanism for "coordinated" and "controlled" flight, enabling a "stabilized" landing. It's pretty much all the pieces that were never completely assembled before, but which every successful plane ever built afterwards put together in one way or another. Thus, they get the credit. Nationalism and the subsequent patent dispute, as well as the big Ohio floods which destroyed photographic evidence and logs, has since clouded the issue somewhat. And while pages like this one are fascinating to see others who were close or who had their own good ideas, they don't really cast any doubt on the Wrights' accomplishment. All my own opinion, of course, which is why it's here instead of on the real page. --Sam (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, yes, but not something to put in the article. Again, first we'd need an outside source to site for the definitions, not personal experience. Second, even when we have that, what would we do with that information? Do we think it could be the basis of qualifying the claims? That would still be original research. All we can do is report the claims, not "fix" them. --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although knowledgeable commentary can sometimes point the way to further (non-original) research that can be useful elsewhere. DonFB (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of "sustained".

To me the word sustained means an activity which can continue for significant time or even indefinitely, that you can keep on flying until the tank is empty, for example. From the web:

"At the beginning of the 19th century, sustained powered heavier-than-air flight remained an impossibility because of the lack of suitable power plants. The level of technology that would permit even limited powered flight lay over a century in the future."

"Which is the only mammal capable of sustained flight? The bat." "Young bats achieved sustained flight at 55 days of age. .... The bats started to forage on their own when they achieved sustained flight."

"Aircrew fatigue monitoring during sustained flight operations from Souda Bay. Operational flight surgeons are often responsible for determining aeromedical readiness of aircrew members whose accumulated flight time exceeds standard limitations."

"and climbed to a maximum altitude of 39,880 feet. A sustained flight record was set at 36,352 feet."

"Raymond has built a new wing that incorporates monocrystalline silicon cells efficient enough to generate 1,800 watts of energy. He noted that he only needs about 1,100 watts to maintain sustained flight in Sunseeker."

What does "successful" mean? Is a barely controlled glide down a slope for 269m ending in a crash which damaged the plane, and which would have killed or badly hurt the pilot if it wasn't for the strong headwind and an altitude of only a few feet a "successful" example of flying?

Conclusion: The Smithsonian terminology is so different from normal use of these words that it must be pointed out that it is a description formulated by the Smithsonian institute, like this:

"According to the Smithsonian institute this was the first successful, sustained, controlled, powered and manned flight in the world history." This Smithsonian description should be followed or preceeded of a detailed description of what really happened.

This will tell the reader both exactly what was achieved that day and what kind of institute the Smithsonian institute is.

Note that the Wright brothers themselves did consider their flights at the end of 1905 their first real flights. Flyer I, II, and III had big problems which resulted in barely controllable, short, bumpy, bucking and veering flights, ending in "unintended landings" until they finally found a solution for Flyer III which made it reliable and capable of sustained and controlled flight.

Should we accept the Smithsonian's strange definition of terms and call the 1903 flight the first successful, sustained, controlled, powered and manned flight in the world history, or use the normal definitions of these terms, ignore the Smithsonian institute, and write that the first successful, sustained, controlled, powered and manned flight by the Wright brothers happened in 1905? Should we tell the readers the truth, or uphold and support an old myth? Roger491127 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability,not truth." DonFB (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To me the "truth" is the most probable, sufficiently verified version at the moment. "Truths" can be changed if new evidence appears which changes the situation.

This is quite correct. Debates may occur over the "validity" of sources. DonFB (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And before jump on the expression "we tell the readers..". I am well aware of the rule against telling the reader anything of our own views, but to be honest we are all telling the reader things, through the way we choose what to include, how to format it, etc.. Could we please stop playing word games and get back to the important issues here? Roger491127 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But, this whole section is nothing but a "word game". It seems you want to define the words a certain way that would then allow you to change the listing for the 1903 flight. Both steps are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to collect information, not create it. I happen to agree that the 1905 flight is a more useful definition of a successful flight, but many accepted sources say otherwise. Get the Smithsonian and others to change their claim, and then we can change the one here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this the Smithsonian wiki? Considering all the questionable actions by Smithsonian over the years I wonder why anybody even cares what they think about anything. Roger491127 (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Scope of the entire claim

The very long section called "Scope of the entire claim" is very long, half of the page. The section has been ignored for a long time, few people bother to read it or doing anything about it. It is full of un-referenced material, original work by Monroe.

The title seems to be about claims by inventors, but the points below does not fit that interpretation. Considering the text its title could be: "How to become known for being the inventor of something and how to build up that reputation so it lasts for as long as possible."

We should either revise both title and text extensively, or delete the whole section. I am for the second alternative.

Isn't there another wiki page about inventors or something like that which already exists and probably is a lot better, making this text unnecessary? Or, if the text is about entrepreneurs and creators of brand marks, market cornering, etc.. isn't there some better text than this? This page started as a copy of List_of_early_flying_machines with this long text added by Monroe. I question the decision to create this page to begin with. Now we have two very similar pages to update and complete, one of them with Monroes text below it.

If more people continue to create their own versions of pages we end up with a wikipedia full of unnecessary pages, one for every taste. Should the titles be like this: Monroe's page about aviation history. Roger's page about aviation history. Eddie's page about aviation history. DonFB's page about aviation history. And thousands of other people's pages about aviation history.

What claim is the current title about anyway? Considering the text below it it can not be about inventing, because to be accepted as the inventor of something it is enough to build it and demonstrate it to enough witnesses.

After the invention has been publically demonstrated to work the inventor's task is completed. That's all that's needed to be regarded as the inventor.

A lot of the text is about other stuff than inventing, and it is full of questionable statements. If we delete the text we are left with another decision, should we merge the two pages, and decide if it should have the form of a table, or bullets and free text.

I like the bulleted free text style, but the table formatted page contains more material at the moment. Table formatted pages a more difficult to edit for inexperienced people.

What to do about it?

Move Monroes text to its own page, if sufficient reasons can be given for creating such a page. Title: "How to invent and become famous and how to corner the market, etc.."? Or "How to make your own versions of already existing pages? Or "Monroe's ideas and verbiage. ´ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Keep both List_of_early_flying_machines and this article and synchronize them, the same information, different formatting?

Or is there a better solution? Roger491127 (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First, we'd do better to keep things focused on the article, not individual contributors. It's more polite, and avoids associating one's arguments with the ad hominem fallacy. BTW, my opinion, apparently shared by Roger491127, is that the Wrights did not truly "fly" until 1905. I haven't made my opinion obvious in my edits, since our personal opinions should have no baring here. I'm sorry if that made it seem that attacking me might aide Roger's cause.

Second, I concur that the two articles, First flying machine and List of early flying machines should be merged. The old article was titled as list of machines, but instead mostly debated claims. I thought the debate and the list each deserved their own article, but later editors added the list back to the debate; it seems people think the debate is incomplete without the list.

Third, the point about un-referenced material is valid. This whole article is sadly unreferenced. The earliest versions were that way, and my changes never addressed this. But why single out just this section? Roger seems to imply that it's pro-Wright. Myself, I thought it was the opposite, showing how abilities outside of pure science might lead to acceptance of scientific claims. Without that understanding, it might seem that the Wright's position at the start of the age of flight was proof of their science.

But these are differing subjects; we can't effectively debate them all together. I suggest we first merge the list from List of early flying machines into this article. After that, we can discuss what to do with getting proper references, and then see what we have left after that.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the title "First Flying Machine" sets up an impossible challenge and is an invitation to endless, fruitless debate—not only about who is "first," but what is a "flying machine". I'd like to see the articles merged under "List of Early Flying Machines". That title does not entice editors to try to prove their entry is correct with all the accompanying debate. The "List" article's introductory paragraph could briefly mention (as it does now) that controversy exists about the meaning of things like "machine" and "first," although the article would not be soliciting entries for "first". It would no longer refer readers to the (Monroe) text about the nature of the controversies. The readers can make their own judgements, based on the entries. (Maybe later the Monroe text could be resurrected in its own article, with citations, but no accompanying list.) The "List" article would still include some text with the entries about the "significance" of each machine mentioned—with citations (footnotes) to support claims of significance, or even claims of "first". A bulleted list would be easier to edit, although it would probably require a little more "maintenance" to preserve its format (for example, Name,Date,Machine,etc). DonFB (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't support a merge, it would take a lot of work, and Imagine the amount of discussion which would be needed for a merge. The tabled list mainly created by me and DonFB lately is in a very good shape right now, and easy to read. The table format is not beautiful, but it is effective for organizing stuff clearly. The most important events get more space than less important events. It should not be changed. The title corresponds well with the content. It covers all kinds of early flying machines, as it should according to its title.

I suggest that the "First Flying Machine" (or whatever you want to call it) is cleaned up and that it concentrates on the first heavier than air motorized airplanes, which fits its title. Maybe even change its title to "Early airplanes" which is even more precise. Remove the last half, the Monroe text, and remove a few entries in the beginning which are clearly not about motorized flight. The rest is fairly okay and describes the development of the motorized airplane. Incomplete but beautiful.

Those changes are pretty easy to do, and then we have two articles which handle two different subjects (even if a part of the early flying machines article also describes the first motorized flights, I don't see that as a problem, the invention of the motorized airplane is interesting for a lot of people and two articles covering that controversial era is good). The two articles should have links to each other so no matter which the reader finds first he can easily find the other too.

A really interested reader will read both articles if he is interested in motorized flight, and he can follow the links to the inventors he is most interested in and find more information.

A third article, Aviation_history, is less organized. For example it has two sections titled Lighter than air, but no heavier than air section. But it contains a lot of information. I see it as a scrapheap where I can find stuff not mentioned anywhere else. It has facts about the first helicopter and the first seaplane which we can include in the tabled article. Aviation_history should be better organised and revised and it needs a lot more work. It covers a larger subject so it will hopefully get better in the future. The beginning of that article can have a short treatment of really early flight plus a link to Early flying machines and the "first airplanes" article for more information, and continue from where those articles end.

The three articles will have clearly defined subjects and complete each other.

1 Early airplanes, covers a short but intensive era of development. Approximately 1895 - 1915

2 Early flying machines covers the development from the stone age up to 1920 or so.

3 Aviation_history covers the whole subject of aviation, but it can refer to the other two articles for those special eras. It can concentrate on modern times, from around 1910 or so. with reasonable overlaps between the three articles, of course. Roger491127 (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A fourth article I just discovered, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_flight, constructed exactly like Monroes created his page, copying the table from Early flying machines and adding a section of totally unrefereced, unsupported ideas and views of his own. Should be deleted and people looking for it should be redirected to Early flying machines. Roger491127 (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Monroe, I don't have the time to add hundreds of tags to your text which would be the right thing to do, with citation needed, original work, references needed, pointing out all the faults, etc.. Why don't you just voluntarily delete the whole section which takes up half of the space of the page? And it consists entirely of your own ideas and views. Roger491127 (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother, I did it myself, after 48 hours of silence from Monroe, who once started this article by copying the tables from Early flying machines adding his own essay to it. As this deletion of Monroe's essay with loads of unsourced and unreferenced material cleared up the page I also removed the tag complaining about it. Roger491127 (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: many, many other organizations

Feel free to mention a few here on the Discussion page. DonFB (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

AOPA; Smithsonian; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; First Flight Society, the patent offices of the United States, France, Germany, and other nations (all of whom upheld the Wright's patent on the only mechanism anyone's ever used to roll a plane: to differentially change the wings angles of attack to induce roll); The New York Times; Scientific American; hundreds (thousands?) of books, articles, ... even the aviation societies of France were forced to concede the point after the Wright's demonstrations in their country. Just Google for awhile and the consensus is that the Wrights were first among almost all established flight-related organizations. It's absurd to ascribe "The Smithsonian" with an authoritative voice for defining first flight. (Ironically, the Smithsonian was late in recognizing the Wrights' achievement because they were backing Langley's failed attempts at flight, which is why the Wright Flyer was originally designated to a London museum on the Wrights' death.) The Wright's aircraft was unique in many ways: it could control all of yaw, pitch, roll, and throttle (a first, and a requirement for "controlled" flight); it had a modern propeller (most attempts at flying used fans, and the few who used an aerodynamic propeller used ones with efficiencies far less than the Wright's); and it had a powerplant and structure capable of sustaining the thrust and structure to take off from level ground and fly an arbitrary course and duration. None of the planes listed on this page even claims to fulfill all the requirements of the Wrights' plane, so even this page pretty much supports their claim.

In any case, if you want a reference, create a footnote and cite something like [2] (the nytimes article reporting the claim) or [3] (the Wright brothers patent, which was upheld in every country it was filed in and withstood every court challenge). Or even reference Wikipedia's Wright_brothers article, which states that they "are generally credited with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight on December 17, 1903."

But it's pretty clearly an abuse of Wikipedia guidelines to try to use misleading references (ie. "According to the Smithsonian ...") to limit the veracity of a widely held claim. --Sam (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is an even greater abuse to state as an absolute fact which flight was the first fully controlled, sustained and successful manned motorized flight in world history. Especially as there are so many conflicting views on the issue. Quote from the top of the article "There are conflicting views as to what was the first flying machine."

Therefore we must explain what qualifications this claim has. We can write, for example: The general view in especially USA is that this was the first... The most referred-to institutions in this case are Smithsonian and FAI. You can choose any reference you like, but you cannot state this as an absolute fact. I am waiting for your choice of expression. If you dont qualify that statement I will change it back to my version. 87.249.177.39 (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Or you can simply describe what happened, with enough details to allow the reader to decide for himself what to think about it, like this: Wright brothers Orville (1871-1948) and Wilbur (1867-1912) made four powered flights near Kitty Hawk, North Carolina in the U.S. on December 17, 1903. The first three flights did not exceed 200 feet or 15 seconds. The fourth, by Wilbur, traveled 852 feet (260m) in 59 seconds. All their flights that day ended in bumpy and unintended "landings" and the plane undulated up and down and veered sideways. The longest flight ended in a nosedive crash which damaged the plane.

In 1905 Wilbur Wright pilots a flight of 24 miles (39km) in 39 minutes, a world record that stood until 1908. When testing of Flyer III resumed in September the results were almost immediate. The bucking and veering that had hampered Flyers I & II were gone. The minor crashes the Wrights had experienced disappeared. The flights with the redesigned Flyer III started lasting over 20 minutes. Thus Flyer III became a practicable, as well as dependable aircraft, flying solidly for a consistent duration and bringing its pilot back to the starting point safely and landing without damage to itself. (Quoted from Wright_Flyer_III) ("bucking and veering" means barely controllable pitch and roll) Roger491127 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

None of you have put forward any arguments against my suggestions, so I changed the 1903 and 1905 entries on the Wright brothers into more correct and (internationally) understandable entries. Roger491127 (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sam's question

Roger, your entry is definitely closer to an unbiased view. However, it seems to imply that the Wright's landings amounted to crash landings in 1903. Compared to those who came before them, such as Ader (all of whose landings resulted in total destruction of the aircraft), their

The Wrights would have crashed and died too if they had not taken such safety precautions: The strong headwind, flying very low over a soft material to land in. Expressions like "every flight that day ended in a bumpy and unintentional landing" come from the brothers themselves, if I understand it correctly. The last flight of Wilbur 1903 ended in a nosedive "landing" which damaged the front elevator system. Roger491127 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt that the Wrights knew the limitations of their craft better than anyone before them. They also had more control of their craft, though, than anyone before them (according to all existing evidence). A strong headwind, though, is completely irrelevant to the claim of sustained flight, but it did make launch easier over a shorter launch area (just like aircraft do to this day). (A headwind shortens the takeoff roll, but doesn't affect the plane at all when in flight-- it only affects the plane's path over the ground.) No craft before them have any contemporaneous evidence that they could affect all of roll, yaw, pitch, and power through mechanisms built into the craft. --Sam (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

landings were very controlled if not intentional. The fact that there were 4 flights on the same day in the same aircraft, the 4th being the longest, tends to validate the "controlled landing" assertion. (Even today a favored quote among pilots goes something like "Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. If the plane is still flyable afterwards, that's a perfect landing.") For additional references of what happened that day, a good source is "Miracle at Kitty Hawk: The Letters of Wilbur and Orville Wright.", which documents well their successes and failures in their own contemporary words. (If there's one thing that isn't in any dispute, it's that the Wrights were masters at documenting what they were doing at the time.) One interesting observation made by the Wrights is in calculating the distance they travelled through the air, not over the ground, as mentioned here. Besides time in the air, that's also an interesting statistic which would be fascinating to compare to other attempts in their time. Also, here's the Wright brother's own account of what they had accomplished, which actually seems like a pretty reasonable claim: "This flight lasted only 12 seconds, but it was nevertheless the first in the history of the world in which a machine carrying a man had raised itself by its own power into the air in full flight, had sailed forward without reduction of speed and had finally landed at a point as high as that from which it started." I think the debatable phrase there is probably "full flight" (some might argue they never left ground effect), but they certainly went orders of magnitude beyond anyone before, and their work is the basis for everything that happened after. --Sam (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the story about the heavy re-design in 1905 is needed to explain why the Wright brothers suddenly could fly a lot longer, and said that they finally had built a plane which was reliable, safe and practical, the bucking and veering which had hampered earlier Flyer's had disappeared, etc... Roger491127 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I just reverted the article to immediately before the contributions last month of Roger491127 (talk · contribs), who added a large amount of new prose which includes inline numbering ([5], [6] etc) which strongly suggests that it's a copy/paste job, probably from a copyrighted source. There's a lot of stuff in the history if not all which should be reintroduced, but I thought it was better to start back at the point which isn't at risk of plagiarism. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What you call "inline numbering" are, of course, references or footnotes not correctly placed. The source was the main article about Whitehead on wikipedia. I made it better this time, with correct references. Roger491127 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the entire claim

Why do we accept a big chunk of original research like this section which takes up half the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, "Scopre of the claim" has no references and therefore should be deleted. 61.95.65.186 (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel Voisin

I think Gabriel Voisin and his flying machines/gliders also deserve some space on this page. If anything, his article could use some people clicking on it, and hopefully cleaning it up a bit.Eccomi (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of airfoil description

The Technical details of defining flight section contains the popular equal transit-time fallacy. When fixed, please remove this page from the List_of_works_with_the_equal_transit-time_fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.195.114 (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bartolomeu de Gusmão

I´m wondering why Bartolomeu de Gusmão did not appear in this article/list ?--Renzo Grosso (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Gusmão. I added a note in the pre-1900 section about him. --Sam (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Sam. --Renzo Grosso (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Unreliable Source

I have removed information from this article drawn from or sourced from the paper "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu. This source is unreliable, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rocket_Technology_in_Turkish_history. Dialectric (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unformatted Material

The following is clipped from the article (unformatted, broken English):

• The Netherlands. On june 27,1909 Charles, Count de Lambert, using his Wright Flyer did fly over The Netherlands from the heath at the Klappenberg near Etten-Leur.

Mavigogun (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed the section as suggested above

I suggested we remove the whole section of original research, citation needed, and I was supported by another editor. Long time has gone without protests against this decision, so it seems correct to do so. This decision is also supported by the tags which were attached to the section. (Roger491127) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.244 (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger

This article has been merged with:- List of early flying machines and Early flight to form Early flying machines. Petebutt (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shivkar Talpade

This is unsubstantiated and refered to as an urban legend in the Talpade article. The authors are unable to decide if it flew, if it was lighter or heavier than air, or wether it utilized ancient Indian spaceship technology from the Rigveda. If this claim belongs here, then what doesn't?Romanianlies (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Earliest Heavier-Than-Air Pioneers So Close

Should not the Article include something about how close the medieval pioneers came to sustained, piloted, heavier than air flight? The first of these pioneers, Firnas in the 9th century and Eilmer in the 11th, were heavier than air devices. If they had continued, it would have been a small step to affix rockets with slow-buring gunpowder (ie mixed with an inhibitor such as water; gunpowder was invented in the mid-9th century) to their craft thereby achieving powered, piloted, heavier-than-air flight. Clusters of such rockets could have been ignited one after the other by the pilot. Had they done this, they might have advanced the technology of powered heavier-than-air flight by almost a thousand years. Much is said about "sticking to historical facts" in contributing to these Articles. However I suggest that the wider and greater contexts against which these pioneers' inventions stood cannot be properly illuminated in the public's eyes if we are forbidden from speaking of them. (204.112.57.130 (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

No, we don't do that. We describe what happened, not what might have happened. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; and that is how it should remain. However as I outlined in my last sentence above, we do not fully illuminate the public in this way. Perhaps the discussion pages should be expanded beyond just suggestions for the improvement of the Article; that way the greater context can be gleaned here. (204.112.57.130 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Turn the discussion page into your blog host or a general topic bulletin board? Doubt you'll have much positive reaction to either of those suggestions. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be my blog host; we need a third page just for Discussion. Generally on Wikipedia, the existing Discussion page is restricted to improving the Article, effectively censoring general discussion on the topic. (204.112.60.96 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

It would be one thing to talk about how Cayley, Maxim or Lillienthal might have been "the first Wright brothers" instead, but going back to the early medieval period is ludicrous. The West didn't even have workable firearms at this time, certainly not reliable ignition for rockets. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be ludicrous to harken back to early medieval times -- if they hadn't achieved manned flight. But they did, didn't they. I said, that "had they continued" it would have been a small step to achieve rocket propulsion. China had all the neccessary technology, including rockets, in the 9th Century. It's good to see Discussion like this --but my point is that we need a third page, to do it. (204.112.61.78 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC))

Evan Koshtka

The sentence "Historian Evan Koshtka described Talpade as the ‘first creator of an aircraft’." is presently in the section about Shivkar Bapuji Talpades purported unmanned aircraft. I did a Google search on "Evan Koshtka" to learn more about this historian, but apart from 421 results bringing up the exact same sentence as the one quoted above, no other mention is to be found. Abebooks can't find any books by an author named "Evan Koshtka", and neither could the search engine in the Library of Congress Online Catalog. So naturally I am beginning to wonder if this person does even exist. And even if this historian might be real, the lack of any evidence of this suggests that it would not be a very notable person, at least not enough to be used in this way as corroborating evidence of an already dubious account. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Since noone objected I have removed the quotation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Units

International system : distance symbols are : m (metre) or km (kilometre), and not "meter" or "meters".Plxd (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gustave Whitehead

Some Whitehead claims are being argued over. What are we to do?

• Gustave Whitehead, United States — May 3, 1901

  On July 26, 1901, the Minneapolis Journal reprinted a New York Sun article that reported Gustave Whitehead had made unmanned powered flights on May 3, 1901 for 1/2 mile 2,600 feet (790 m) at 40 to 50 feet in a machine that carried 220 pounds of sand as ballast.

I've never heard of Whitehead before, but we have an article on him, he was evidently covered in SciAm, and there are several other mentions of him in this article. What are our criteria for including dubious claims here, remembering that debunking popular misconceptions is still a valuable role?

I certainly think that Whitehead should be mentioned in this article. I'd note that he already is, several times, even if this contentious piece is removed. There's no need to force it in, just to keep some mention of Whitehead.

Why is this 1901 claim contentious, when his 1899 claim (which seems less credible) isn't challenged? This seems to be on the basis of dubious reporting, not a dubious claim of itself. Is there a cite to some debunking of it? If we have one claim, and one alone, to link to a broader article, then should this be the 1899 or the other 1901 instead? Is the May 1901 reporting particularly dubious? I note that it's not listed on the main Gustave Whiteheadarticle - I think it certainly should be there, as it's clearly in circulation and our debunking role becomes relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The recent spate of Whitehead-related edits has been frustrating to me because there are several really good books by Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith in which he shows Whitehead to be a teller of tall tales, but those books are in the nearby university library and because of my work I have not been able to go check them out again. They are not online except in snippets. One is the 1960 work The aeroplane: an historical survey of its origins and development (page 207) which was re-issued in 2000 with a slight tweak to the title: Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of the Second World War. In this book Gibbs-Smith seriously doubts the 1901 flight: "The account of the flight on 14 August 1901 in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald reads like a work of juvenile fiction..." Gibbs-Smith says "There is no reason to believe Whitehead ever flew a machine of any kind" in 1966's The invention of the aeroplane (1799-1909). In 1965 (The world's first aeroplane flights: 1902-1908 and earlier attempts to fly) he said, "Although these claims have been actively revived, there can be no doubt that Whitehead's alleged flights were only flights of fancy. Whitehead was an ingenious dreamer who, in later years, managed to make a few powered hops." Gibbs-Smith is very clear about the difference between a powered hop and controlled flight; he says a barn door can be made to 'fly' for a short distance if enough power is applied. To him, flying is something in which all of the elements of control are present, so his use of the phrase "powered hop" is a dismissal. Gibbs-Smith says Whitehead's various aircraft were absent of any truly workable means of control. Gibbs-Smith studied the archives of Whitehead's claims during his year on the Charles A. Lindbergh Chair in Aerospace History, so he's highly qualified to dismiss Whitehead. Binksternet (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So does the 1899 claim stay?

I still think we need some link to his article, just for the debunk. For this pre-Wright period, "powered hops" are certainly interesting as an achievement. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Whitehead's unmanned May 1901 flights are included in his article under the Flight Claims Connecticut 1901 section. For a better understanding of where Whitehead's experiments in conquering the air stood in comparison to his contemporaries in 1904, read the book written in late 1904 by Charles Henry Cochrane; Modern Industrial Progress. Cochrane said Whitehead's "plane" used a "four-sided rudder" for steering and a 12 horsepower motor. Whitehead is listed chronologically in Cochrane's 1904 book (reprinted in 1911) with Lilienthal, Chanute, Pischler and on the same page and before the Wright Brother's.Tomticker5 (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)