Talk:Wright Flyer

Kitty Hawk, alternate or original name?

This image, used on the page, includes a note from Orville Wright which indicates that he is calling the plane Kitty Hawk. It is clickable for a larger image. Was Kitty Hawk the name that the Wright's used for this plane and, if so, did they also name it, then or later, the Wright Flyer or was that a name used by others? Here is an article which includes, near the bottom, evidence that the plane was called the Kitty Hawk. Seems enough to include it as an alternate name, but is there information that it should be the official name with Wright Flyer being the common name? The Smithsonian includes Kitty Hawk Flyer as an alternate name (click 'long description'), but Orville's note doesn't include the word 'Flyer'. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The "Here is an article..." link above has a photo with the "Kitty Hawk" name displayed, would that be copyable for the page? Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The two photos (this page, and the truck with big sign in the wright.edu article) would be considered primary sources. But they seem to provide some support for applying the name "Kitty Hawk" to the plane. As a more general comment, I think the first sentence of any article should avoid, as much as possible, including a variety of different names (and pronunciations and linguistic versions) for the topic. I prefer that such additional identifiers be put at the end of the opening paragraph. Policy/Guidelines support that idea--of not stuffing the lead sentence with such material, making it hard to read. DonFB (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good format. The Smithsonian reference seems like the key one we presently have for the Kitty Hawk name (and Orville's note seems the icing on the cake). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, the airandspace.si.edu article is good secondary source. DonFB (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking again at the initial naming sentence (which I've edited for brevity) its placement seems fine as it contains no pronunciation and is brief enough not to confuse readers or their topic comprehension. It may actually read awkwardly moving those to the end of the first paragraph, and could inhibit reading flow from the first to the second paragraph. What wording are you envisioning, maybe I'm missing it and you have a good sentence in mind. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to state my preference as a general principle. I envisioned simply moving all the secondary names to the paragraph end, beginning: "The airplane is also known as...." I almost did, but decided I can live with its present form. Those kinds of ledes are a pet peeve, and I always worry a little that another editor coming along will see the multiple names up front and decide to add another, and pretty soon the lede becomes a big speed bump right at the start of the article. Several Policies/Guidelines urge not stuffing a lede sentence with multiple names, pronouncers, etc., and as a reader of the encyclopedia myself, I couldn't agree more. On a great many articles, however, those recommendations are honored in the breach. Here is one that was so bad as to be laughable: [1] DonFB (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

sol (smiling out loud and almost lol) at that article before your edit. I've had the same reaction to many other articles which overrun the first sentence with similar, but no doubt not as extreme, examples as that one. After reading that one, and thanks for pointing it out, I may use it on my talk page intro, the first sentence here seems like a walk in the park and doesn't seem like it would hinder the word flow for too many readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

THANK YOU, Randy, for highlighting this issue. And for these initial steps you've taken to correct the situation.

Any child who grew up as an avid builder of plastic model airplane kits knows very well that this most famous airplane is called the "Kitty Hawk". That's because this was clearly the name on the box: Google Image Search: kitty+hawk+wright+model+kit These ubiquitous kits, available all across the USA, spanned from the 1950s through the 1990s at a minimum.

And here is the motherload reference for the Wright Brothers' 1903 airplane being named the "Kitty Hawk":

https://sova.si.edu/record/NASM.XXXX.0393?s=11210&n=10&t=C&q=Art&i=11212 (dnld as PDF)

Operation Homecoming, with crate marked "KITTYHAWK" (no space), and truck marked twice on each side identifying the aircraft's name as the "KITTY HAWK"

This 'Wright 1903 Flyer "Operation Homecoming" Scrapbook' from the Smithsonian Institute has well over one hundred instances of this airplane being called the "Kitty Hawk". Furthermore, that is the name which is used exclusively throughout this document (with three rare exceptions cited below). Here are particular pages of note:

- PDF p41,p45,p73,p221 of254: airplane referred to as "Kitty", for short, along with the commonly used name "Kitty Hawk".

- PDF p29,p47-57,p81 of254: airplane referred to as "Kittyhawk" (with no space), along with the commonly used name "Kitty Hawk".

- PDF p41,p67 of254: "Kitty Hawk Day" proclamation.

- PDF p43 of254: US NAVY OFFICIAL MEMO & PLAN, airplane referred to as "Kitty Hawk" x2 in Memo, x1 in Plan, signed by XO of USS Palau.

Here are the rare exceptions to where the aircraft is referred to by any name other than the "Kitty Hawk" (or "Kitty", or "Kittyhawk"):

- PDF p71 of254: airplane "...known as both the "Flyer" and the "Kitty Hawk"." (newspaper: Paterson Evening News, Paterson, NJ).

- PDF p87 of254: "...Orville sought to have the 'Flyer' (as they called me)...", Magazine article, Current Science and Aviation.

- PDF p109 of254: "...the Wright Brothers' "Flyer" is...", (along with calling it the "Kitty Hawk", newspaper: The Knickerbocker News, Albany, NY).

Transcript of Hap Arnold's speech from the day that the airplane was presented at the Smithsonian, with three examples highlighted of him referring to it by the name "Kitty Hawk"

This speech transcript is what I consider to be the STRONGEST reference:

- PDF p173 of254: Hap Arnold's message at the Smithsonian presentation event, Dec 17, 1948, "...this priceless airplane, the "Kitty Hawk", is back home...", "...I can never think of the "Kitty Hawk" without being aware of...", "...which the "Kitty Hawk" fathered...".

Hap Arnold knew the Wright Brothers personally. One of the "Early Birds", he was taught to fly by them at their school. He was the only 5-star general of the US Air Force, along with being the winner of the first Mackay Trophy, and being a founder of Pan Am and Project RAND.

And then of course there is Paul Garber of the Smithsonian who oversaw Operation Homecoming. Garber was one of the foremost historians on the pioneers of flight. He personally accompanied the aircraft during its legs from Nova Scotia to Washington DC. He had approval authority over these aspects of the entire mission, to include the name by which the airplane was referred to.

This Smithsonian reference includes examples from many various newspapers which referred to this airplane exclusively as the "Kitty Hawk", including The New York Times, The New York Sun, The Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Daily News, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, along with newspapers in Paterson, NJ, Dayton, OH, Omaha, NE, Scranton, PA, Albany, NY, Buffalo, NY, Nova Scotia, and Wellington, NZ.

Upon examination of the plethora of sources contained within this Smithsonian scrapbook, it indicates quite clearly that the PRIMARY NAME for this famous airplane is the "Kitty Hawk". And this was my first thought when I first happened across this article, many years ago: "I wonder why they aren't calling this plane the "Kitty Hawk". --Wright Stuf (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Wright Stuf for your detailed research and analysis. Nice work. I enjoyed the link to decades of the scale model planes, all named Kitty Hawk. You've shown that there is a case for Kitty Hawk as primary name, and it would be an interesting RM (as Wright Flyer has probably become the common name). At a minimum your research shows that Kitty Hawk should remain as the main alternative. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

These were great documents to read. And here is another excellent reference:

Wilbur & Orville Wright: A Bibliography Commemorating the One-Hundredth Anniversary of the First Powered Flight (NASA Publication SP-2002-4527, published Sep, 2002)

On pg123 (pdf132of153) you can find a batch of even more examples where the airplane is referred to as the "Kitty Hawk":

- Kitty Hawk in Museum. Aviation Week, Nov. 29, 1948, vol. 49, no. 22, p.15

- The Kitty Hawk Comes Home at Last, by Findley, Earl N., U.S. Air Services, Dec. 1948, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 5-6

- Kitty Hawk's Last Landing. Air Force, Dec. 1948, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 18-19

- America Welcomes the Kittyhawk. Some Extracts from the American Press on the Return of the Aeronautical Beau Geste. Pylon, June 1949, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 21

It's quite colorful to call this plane the "Aeronautical Beau Geste". That aside, Aviation Week and Air Force Magazine are not shabby references, as with the highly prestigious newspapers previously cited above, and of course the US Navy and US Air Force themselves, along with the Smithsonian, the folks who own, keep and maintain the Kitty Hawk. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Legacy section, in light of the name Kitty Hawk

Given the understanding that this famous aircraft has been widely and commonly known as the "Kitty Hawk", it is important for this article to likewise include the legacy of things which followed that were also named "Kitty Hawk". This includes aircraft and spacecraft, ships (airplane/aircraft carriers), and schools.

(These following blockquote paragraphs can be skipped as largely being an aside, separate from the Legacy section being recommended.)
The aircraft naming story is particularly interesting. Aside from single aircraft being given the name "Kitty Hawk", there is the legacy naming of an entire aircraft type as the "Kittyhawk". Then there is the naming pattern observed within a particular aircraft corporation. Grumman, for example, is widely noted for using nicknames ending in "-cat". These are the Wildcat, Hellcat, Tigercat, Bearcat and Tomcat for the F4F, F6F, F7F, F8F and F-14 respectively. Continuing the "cat" theme, there was also the Grumman Panther, Cougar, Jaguar and Tiger. We can guess that when Grumman won the Lunar Module contract, there were strong arguments within the company to give this spacecraft a "-cat" name to continue this legacy. And when that didn't happen, there were 9 Apollo crews who flew these, with the commanders of Apollo 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17 all having been Navy carrier pilots. In the case of Apollo 12 & 14, BOTH moonwalkers were Navy officers who had flown off of carriers. So any of these missions could have given their spaceships "-cat" callsigns. Neil Armstrong, Pete Conrad, Al Bean, Fred Haise, Alan Shepard, John Young and Gene Cernan all had flown Grumman "cats" off of carriers as their primary aircraft. The others (Lovell, Mitchell, etc) probably flew Grumman "cats" as a Navy test pilot. The best opportunity seems to have been Apollo 12, the All-Navy crew, with all three being Grumman "cat" veterans, with moonwalkers Conrad & Bean having flown the F9F Cougar operationally (VF-43 & VA-44 repectively), and the Command Module Pilot Dick Gordon having flown the F11F Tiger as a test pilot. [Edited 1/14]

But that didn't happen. I've never seen anyone refer to the LM as the Lunacat, nor similar. These "Moon Sailors" never did that. And I've never heard this topic raised, nor any of the moonwalkers asked this directly. But Apollo 14 did name their Command Module the Kitty Hawk (made by North American Aviation, a company which curiously has the same initials as the "First Man", N.A.A.). In parallel with this entrenched history of Grumman "-cats", there is another aircraft company which has an extremely long history of using the "-hawk" nickname. Though I don't hear anyone discuss this one. The Wright Brothers started their own aircraft company. In later years, Wright Aeronautical merged with Curtiss to become Curtiss-Wright, a company which exists to this day, headquartered in North Carolina. You can visit their homepage, and that page shows you the Wright Flyer. Click on that image, and it says this:

"Curtiss-Wright Corporation ... has a long history with its roots dating back to Orville and Wilbur Wright's first flight in 1903, and Mr. Glenn Curtiss, the father of naval aviation. In 1929, the companies founded by these three great aviation pioneers, the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company and Wright Aeronautical Corporation, merged to form the largest aircraft company at the time..."

So it is this company which produced the P-40 Kittyhawk. Along with an entire line of "-hawk" aircraft, even predating the Wright merger. This includes the P-1, P-2, P-3, P-5, P-6, P-11, P-17, P-22, P-23, P-36 and AT-4 & AT-5 ...ALL named "Hawk". The P-40 is also known as the Warhawk and the Tomahawk. Various other Curtiss models were named the Seahawk, Sparrowhawk, Goshawk and Blackhawk. Then there was the Dayton-Wright XO-3 Mohawk [...along with the Curtiss Mohawk (Commonwealth P-36's) -Edit 1/15]. (Other companies have produced airplanes named the Skyhawk, Nighthawk, Jayhawk, and most recently the Red Hawk, along with the Hawkeye, and the more obscure Hawk Junior. Helo nicknames include the Black Hawk, Seahawk, Pave Hawk, Jayhawk and SpeedHawk. Pilotless aircraft have been named the Global Hawk, T-Hawk and SpyHawk.)

Now I am not aware of these Hawk-themed aircraft nicknames as being connected with the Wright Brothers, or was done in tribute to them (with the obvious exception being the Kittyhawk). But I do see it to be important to have this mentioned here in the Talk page in case anyone were to find a reference where it is stated that there is some connection or tribute. If that were to be found, then it would be important to include that in the Legacy section.

One could even go so far as to identify commonality between these two different families of aircraft nicknames, both the -cat and -hawk traditions. The name "Kitty Hawk" has connotations of both -cat and -hawk. And then there is likewise commonality in the launching mechanism used by the Wright brothers, as well as the Navy carrier jet aircraft from more than one company, the Tomcat, the Skyhawk, etc. These used what is commonly called a "cat launch", here with the term 'cat' being an abbreviation for 'catapult'. 'Cats' using 'cats'. But this peripheral connection goes far beyond the naming pattern topic. And this entire blockquote section can be set aside for current purposes.

For the time being, the recommendation being proposed is to add a Legacy section where direct connections are clear. This includes the specific aircraft and spacecraft named the Kitty Hawk, along with the ships, and even one school in Texas, where the students at Kitty Hawk Middle School in San Antonio are known as The Flyers. This school is located on Kitty Hawk Rd. And this road is one mile from the Main Entrance at Randolph, Air Force Base, the famous pilot training base that was given the nickname "West Point of the Air". Another school, back at the Outer Banks, is First Flight High School, with their mascot being the Nighthawks, yet another -hawk themed name. Across the street is First Flight Middle School, where they are the Seahawks, and also First Flight Elementary, the Flyers. All three of these schools are adjacent to the Wright Brothers Memorial, with statue of the airplane being even closer.

Another excellent subsection for this would include mention of these statues of the Kitty Hawk, like this other one at Embry-Riddle in Daytona, Florida, in Chanute, Kansas, at Maxwell AFB, AL, etc. At least citing the most prominent ones. It seems to be a fitting complement to the Reproductions section.

And there's also the "Kitty Hawk Air Society" of the US Air Force Junior ROTC. Here's one page of theirs: with pin photo showing the Wright Flyer.

Far more important, and arguably the most important of all of these, is the NACA (seal), the 40-plus year predecessor to NASA itself. --Wright Stuf (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's another one I had missed:

File:Viking_B-8_Kitty_Hawk_(2835380968).jpg

The Viking B-8 Kitty Hawk, used as a trainer during World War II (along with the Waco and Cub). One of the most famous pilots who trained in this Kitty Hawk was none other than Ted Williams, who flew this as prep for entering the "V-5 Naval Aviation program". The screening was done at Amherst's Civilian Pilot Training Course as the first phase of officer candidate training (ref). This B-8 Kitty Hawk was built by Viking Flying Boat Co. of New Haven, CT, after a merger with Bourdon Aircraft Corporation of Hillsgrove, Rhode Island (info HERE & HERE, stating that 34 were built). THIS document shows that George Bush was picked at the same place and time as Ted Williams by the Naval Aviation Cadet Selection Board. So it appears that it would be a reasonable guess that George Bush ALSO flew the B-8 Kitty Hawks at Amherst. (Bush & Williams ended up as "Cloudbusters" in the V-5 program at Chapel Hill along with Gerald Ford, as stated by Anne Keene in her vid, with John Glenn going thru the V-5 program in Iowa.) The marketing slogan that Bourdon used was:

The Kitty Hawk: "Flies Like a Hawk — Lands Like a Kitten"

(see AD, with the logo of pilot's wings featuring a cat's face as the center crest, and the words KITTY HAWK on the wings.)

Imagine if someone were to discover a photo of a pilot like Ted Williams or George Bush flying one of these Kitty Hawks. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The P-40 Kittyhawk and Tomahawk names are British creations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's an in-depth reference which explains:

"...the export version of the P-40, tagged the Tomahawk by Curtiss."

"...designating it the D-model, while the Royal Air Force gave it a new name: the Kittyhawk."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Curtiss_P_40/2pCHCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

And here's another excellent reference which shows that the name "Warhawk" was not used until the F-model (Kittyhawk Mk II):

http://ram-home.com/ram-old/p-40family.html

This section of Wikipedia explains that the batch of P-40s delivered to the AVG Flying Tigers were "Tomahawks":

Flying_Tigers#Curtiss_P-40

Tomahawk IIB's, to be exact. So P-40C's. That was well before the USAAF started calling the P-40F's the Warhawk.

Then there's also the fighterbomber units who nicknamed their P-40's the "Kittybomber". --Wright Stuf (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"Kittybomber" is Kittyhawk+bomber (see also "Hurribomber" from (Hawker) Hurricane+bomber, "Whirlibomber" from Westland Whirlwind+bomber and Bombphoon from Bomb(er)+Hawker Typhoon.

British designations early in the war for American aircraft were taken from placenames in the US. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

One other issue to be resolved. Are things named Kitty Hawk named after the aircraft itself or the first flight (location)?GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: Place vs Plane

I myself do not see that as being anything that needs to be resolved.

...because the only reason why the place became famous is because of that singular event which happened on one particular day in history. The day that this aircraft became the first successful airplane.

Now the US Navy, for example, will tell you their official story that the aircraft carrier was named in tribute to the place...

"Named for: Kitty Hawk, N.C., and for Kill Devil Hill, the site approximately four miles south of the village of Kitty Hawk, where Orville and Wilbur Wright made the first successful sustained powered flights in a heavier-than-air machine on 17 December 1903.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/k/kitty-hawk-cva-63-ii.html

But I see this to be as silly as if those kids in San Antonio were told that their school, Kitty Hawk Middle School, is named after THE ROAD!

It creates cognitive dissonance as to why these kids refer to themselves as "The Flyers", and not, say, "The Asphalts".

And with the US Navy, to maintain that the ship is named for the village, then it DOES NOT explain why their ship's symbol unambiguously depicts the airplane:

If it was really only named for the village of Kitty Hawk, then a proper symbol would be the Town Hall, or at least their local 7-Eleven.

These prominent facts make it absolutely clear that regardless of what their official story might be, these are all examples of things being de facto named in honor of the Wright Brothers and their airplane.

Even in the case of the USS Wright, here is a patch design which does not depict a silhouette of the two brothers, but instead shows their airplane in flight:

https://www.popularpatch.com/navy-patches/aircraft-carrier-patches/cvl-49-uss-wright-kitty-hawk-patch

All of this is unambiguous evidence that what is being honored here is not merely the place, and not only the two men, but THE EVENT that was accomplished by these two brothers at this particular place. These are unequivocal tributes to the Wright Flyer, the Kitty Hawk. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

OOPS. I now see that I misread your comment, Graeme.
You were questioning:

Plane vs Event

Not Plane vs Place.
Here I do not see how the two can be separated. Again, the only reason why the plane is famous is because of the event. And I would assert that our biggest guide on that question is the fact that here on Wikipedia, this Wright Flyer article covers both. There is no separate article covering the event as distinct from the aircraft. We have articles on the inventors, the photographer, and the plane. Each of these discuss the event. But not a separate article for that. And so I see no need whatsoever for us to split out any such distinction. And I don't see how we would go about attempting to do that, even if someone saw that to be a productive effort. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is what I see to be another excellent guide for us here...
This example of The Spirit of St. Louis (disambiguation). We have an entire section on Charles Lindbergh#In popular culture.
I have not delved into this, but I would be shocked if anyone there attempts to split out any distinction between the aircraft vs the event. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Italics

Hello Ahunt. Single aircraft which are named are italicized (Wright Flyer, Enola Gay, etc.). Saw you also removed italics from the name of a Space Shuttle and the Ingenuity helicopter, so wanted to let you know before other Space Shuttle pages are unitalicized. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Why was section discussing pieces of Flyer on Moon and Mars deleted???

All,

Why did editor Randy Kryn remove the short section about pieces of the Wright Flyer being brought to the Moon and Mars? His edit claims "there is an entire section about this at the page below" but it's not clear what "page" he is referring to. I no longer see any references to these in the article.

Certainly, the section as written was entirely accurate and now no information about the Wright Flyer pieces brought to the Moon and Mars appears in this article at all.

Strongly need this restored. TheGreyMouser2016 (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, a section already existed when you added yours. You can find it at Wright Flyer#Artifacts. Please have a look to see if more needs to be added, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I now see that the "page" he was referring to is within the "Artifacts" roll-up subsection of this article. However, still need to understand why the Moon and Mars references are better hidden in an "Artifacts" roll-up section and not in the main body of the article. TheGreyMouser2016 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'roll up section'. The topics have a decent sized section with some good images. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

TheGreyMouser2016, thanks for the suggestion, I've added a brief note in the lead as a summary of the Artifacts section. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

When TheGreyMouser2016 mentions the "roll- up subsection", I can only conclude that this editor is reading the article on the godforsaken mobile app which displays only the lead section of the article, unless the reader clicks on a pull-down menu to actually read the body of the full article. Randy Kryn, this is the type of havoc that WMF software foolishness wreaks. The fully functional desktop site works fine on 2021 mobile devices and the app is addressing 2010 problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The only time I looked at Wikipedia on mobile was when a friend looked something up about 10 years ago, and I've never edited on mobile, so thanks for the explanation and a sad thing to hear. Because of TheGreyMouse's commendable persistence I've added a summary to the lead which should do the trick. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, I do 99% of my editing on Android smartphones, and I use the desktop site. I only check out the mobile site from time to time, to verify that it still sucks, which it still does. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, not the mobile life for me. Edit on a chesttop laptop, much easier laying around than sitting up. My related quibble is the small size of the default print, I crank my machine up to 175 percent and that suits me fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it from the lede - a couple of swatches of cloth are too minor to put in the lede and has little to do with the aircraft and its flights during its operational life time. It is mentioned down in the body of the article under "artifacts" and that is sufficient. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ahunt. The lead summarizes its page and, apparently, is the only thing shown on some screens. Instead of removing these important honors of the Wright Flyer this lead could use a couple more paragraphs in addition to this one. Maybe concentrate on extending the lead summary, which is now too short, and provide the standard lead-overview of the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter really, even if the lede is expanded, or split into more paras, the fact that a tiny swatch of fabric was sent to Mars is still really minor and wouldn't belong in the lede. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd disagree. If there was an adequate lead summarizing the page the honoring, no matter how large a piece of the Wright Flyer was used (what if NASA had sent an entire wing of the plane? The tiny fabrics, and the wood which went to the Moon, have the same effect: symbolizing in real-time and space the enormity of what the Wright's accomplished) it would find inclusion in the summary. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I would basically classify it as WP:TRIVIA, but let's see if any other editors think it should be in the lede. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting but in the end it is trivia and doesnt need a mention in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wright brothers were not the first

Stringfellow beat them. https://www.newscientist.com/definition/first-powered-flight/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.170.14.66 (talk • contribs)

From this article:

The U.S. Smithsonian Institution describes the aircraft as "the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard."

From the article Wright brothers:

They made the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft...

Key words are pilot, and also controlled, which, back then, would be a pilot. DB1729 (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

References

I think the key word that you quote is "sustained" that doesnt apply to Stringfellow. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Well, Stringfellow's craft flew about 90 feet vs Wright's 120 feet. So I gathered the key distinction was control. Stringfellow's craft was unmanned and thus uncontrolled. DB1729 (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In the UK in a small village near Great Ayton there was a steam powered craft that half glided and half flew over a field a few years before the Wright brothers. It is not very well known but the wright brothers were the first to make a sustained flight back in 1903. I'm unaware of any other pre WB flight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew James Gilbert (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Colorized image (again)

The article once again features a colorized image, in the Specifications section, as added by Wright Stuf in this edit. I believe the colorized and edited photo has no place in this article. I also remember this was the consensus in the talk page discussion last year, which I hope we do not need to reproduce here. I will remove it now. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Despite the consensus, this image seem to be constantly reintroduced. I agree it does not belong, looks really awful. It looks more like a screenshot from a video game than a historical photograph. - Ahunt (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I again oppose use of this colorized image in this article, which is jam packed full of original research on the part of the colorizing editor. No one can possibly know what the actual colors were at the time of the flight, and all of the truly encyclopedic content is contained in the black and white photo. This simply does not belong here. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Vandalism - or perhaps an alternative explanation as to recent edits which have degraded article quality This article has been repeatedly vandalized. And subsequent editors appear to be perfectly accepting of incremental deliberate damage that has been done. On Jan 12, well over one month ago, Ravenpuff did THIS EDIT to the infobox, presenting the justification that being a Featured Picture, this was somehow an improvement. Yet anyone doing a cursory comparison can readily see that this FP is actually an inferior version of the image. So it is obvious that FP was simply pretense for this deliberate vandalism. [EDIT (Feb 21, 2022): Please see my apology to Ravenpuff below.] Now my own starting point when evaluating that edit was to AGF. But I stretched my imagination and could not arrive at any possible way that any editor could assess that this FP was an improvement over the Fully Restored version that got knocked out. Perhaps someone here might be able to present a scenario that is consistent with Good Faith. I cannot. It is extremely easy to see that the FP status had been conferred at least as far back as 2012. And that the Fully Restored version was not created until 2018. Had the Fully Restored version existed when the FP decision was being made, it seems quite obvious that FP status would have been given to that one instead. So why am I raising this issue about this Wright Flyer article being vandalized here in this section about photo colorization? Because Ariadacapo's edit from Jan 23, exactly 4 weeks ago, is yet another example of deliberate damage being done to the article, where subsequent editors have fully accepted this damage. If the actual objection was simply regarding colorization of the historical photo, then the edit which would be consistent with the goal of continual improvement of Wikipedia articles would be to simply SWAP the colored version with the black&white version, which was readily indicated over on the Commons. And who is the person who had uploaded that black&white version? None other than Ariadacapo. (B&w pic here.) The approach I myself decided to take upon observing these cases which were clearly damaging the article was to sit back and wait. My hope was that others here would, at the very minimum, raise questions to these editors who were inflicting the damage and give them opportunity to explain themselves. Ariadacapo & Ravenpuff, I am giving you that opportunity here and now. And this involves far more than just those two editors. This same question is being asked of you, BilCat, Ahunt, GraemeLeggett and Cullen328. If the four of you are objecting to Colorization, then why did none of you not simply swap the colorized photo for the historical black&white version? You all are denying anyone who comes here to learn about the Wright Flyer from seeing this image, regardless of form. And on top of this, there are all of the editors who let the degradation of the infobox image stand. That is two other editors, on top of everyone mentioned above. Of course, the central issue here in this section on Colorization is the question of Policy, which appears to remain unanswered. And the third issue being Consensus. I am starting my reply over here on the Talk by addressing Vandalism, because I see THIS to be the most immediate concern. I would hope that ALL of us, regardless of our differences when it comes to those other two issues, share the common goal of continually improving our article here. Any and all edits which deliberately inflict damage go against that goal, obviously. No one else here has fixed the infobox image. I intend to do that myself. And how this gets fixed goes back to the sticking point from one year ago regarding the issue of whether or not we, as a group, will choose to follow one of the most fundamental principles when it comes to editing: Consensus. After Vandalism, I see that to be the next priority on aspects here that need to be resolved. The way this was left hanging back in February of 2021, fully one year ago, was not a resolution. Not one consistent with Consensus, as I understand it. And not even with the Admin who intervened and presented an Essay which argued for Consistency Between Articles. I will hold off on that discussion until after this Vandalism issue gets resolved. If we cannot get this aspect under control, then we are walking backwards, no matter what our position on Consensus might be. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC) A content dispute is not vandalism. Accusing editors of vandalism when it's not can be considered a personal attack. I highly advise you to.strike those comments so we.can proceed in good faith discussions on the matter. If you keep falsely accusing editors of vandalism, you will be reported to ANI, and may be blocked to prevent this from occurring again. BilCat (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Hello? "I believe the colorized and edited photo has no place in this article." - Ariadacapo That is not a content objection. It is a photo colorization objection. NO ONE, not even you, raised any objection other than colorization. And your reply, and your threat, did not address the first vandalism issue which I had raised. The deliberate degradation of the infobox image. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC) It's a dispute over of content, in this case a photo. It is not vandalism. Anyway, you can defend yourself to the admins at ANI. BilCat (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wright Stuf and false accusations of vandalism. BilCat (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC) All of 2 minutes after I had raised the issue which I saw to be as Vandalism, you vandalize my post by clobbering the Subsection I had created for the express purpose of highlighting this issue. An issue which I had highlighted one year ago (see Archive). The subsection has now been restored. In light of Ravenpuff's explanation (below), I have modified the header title. My full reply is posted over there (User:Wright Stuf and false accusations of vandalism). My first post in this section here indicated that I was totally open to alternate reasons which might explain these edits which I've called attention to. You presented a reason which did nothing to explain why you clobbered the image, instead of switching to b&w. ...and next, went straight to complaining to Admins, instead of presenting a rational rebuttal here as to why your revert was not deliberately inflicting damage. We have seen a history of Admins refusing to uphold WP. Or failure to logically explain why my understanding of WP is incorrect (instead, citing an Essay which contradicted their position). Anyone can look over at that new section where flags have been raised, and see that there are Admins who have mischaracterized the quality of my efforts here. So it appears that we are now entering another cycle of history repeating itself. Or perhaps, someone might surprise me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC) I have no objection to using the highest-quality image here. Admittedly I did not scrutinise the files before making the change, not being an expert in this area. @Wright Stuf: featured pictures can be delisted and replaced; you can nominate the version you uploaded to replace the current featured picture if superior to it – see WP:FPC. At any rate, this does not count as vandalism. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Ravenpuff, thank you for explaining what had happened with your infobox image edit. Given that, then I have mischaracterized what has happened in that case. It appears that I owe you an apology. I would be interested to know your reason why you have taken no further action, after this has been called to your attention. In my own view, it would at least be appropriate for you to explain why you see your chosen image to be the better choice. You have not done that (let alone revert). --Wright Stuf (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC) I chose the current image because it appeared, at first glance, to be the better one – one is (currently) a featured picture, and the other is not. Since, as you pointed out, the other version should work better here, I shall not object if you revert my change and replace the image. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Ok, it is now clear that you have no intention to revert it yourself. If your reason for not doing so is because FP status is something which you value as making your image a better one to present to the public, then I expect you're well aware of the other option available here: - Since it is important to you, then you can do what you had initially suggested that I do. Nominate for that Delist/Replace thing. I myself have no care whatsoever regarding FP status. Perhaps you know something that I don't know as to why FP is so important. I myself just use my own two eyeballs. I can readily see that one image tells a better story than the other, making it more historically valuable. Making it more valuable for this article. For example, in the Fully Restored version, you can see the start of the wooden rail which this airplane used to launch off of. In your FP, the length of the takeoff run is utterly ambiguous. For all anyone knows, Orv might have been travelling down it for hundreds of feet prior to liftoff. But in the Fully Restored version, everyone can see, quite clearly, exactly how long the maximum length of that takeoff run was. I see the ball to be in your court here. And of course, you have the option to leave it there. I hope I have provided a thorough explanation here as to why one image provides significantly better information to the general public than the other image does. That is to say, I still see your edit as having done a negative improvement to our article. That is my opinion. I am fully open to considering any and all other productive views on this which may run counter to my own. --Wright Stuf (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC) @Wright Stuf: I don't disagree with your evaluation of the versions of the photograph, or your judgement on whether to revert the change. Since you don't seem willing to do it either (it doesn't have to be me), I have reinstated the previous infobox image. FP status is accorded to the highest-quality images on Wikipedia, and can serve as a useful indicator to editors who want to use (say) a photograph of the Wright Flyer in an article. Featured pictures are also eligible to appear on the Main Page as the picture of the day – the Daniels photograph could profitably be the POTD on an anniversary of the flight, for example. The version that holds featured status would be the one to appear; the featured status of the current FP can be transferred via a delist-and-replace nomination to the fully restored version. As you have much better knowledge than I about the merits of this version, I think you to be better suited to initiate or contribute to such a nomination. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC) THANK YOU! You stated: "Since you don't seem willing to do it either..." Actually, you will find this in my original post: "No one else here has fixed the infobox image. I intend to do that myself." The reason why I held back is because, once you appeared in our discussion here, I saw you to be the best person to do this change. And I am certain that everyone else here would have freaked out by the way I was going to make the change. Thank you also for all the info regarding FP. I've long been aware of all that. And then with the pic we're discussing, when striving to evaluate your reasons, I had also seen this: "This image was selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for December 17, 2023." I myself could care less which version is used on that day. But maybe some time before December of 2023, I might find a reason to care. Now I had stated that I owe you an apology. I am extremely sorry for having mischaracterized your motivations. There is loads of history in what has been happening here over the past year. So my reaction is laced with some variant of PTSD. Maybe Omicron-PTSD. That does not in any way excuse me having jumped the gun. Well... actually, I did not jump at all. I have been waiting very patiently for well over a month to address your change. Things have certainly gotten out of hand here. In my ideal world, the response to my initial post here would have been your explanation, which you gave. And then the other editors piping in to explain their own motivations as being perfectly benign as well. Now me having raised this V-flag probably was the worst way to go about getting their feedback. But I am glad that with you, this has resolved in the way that I had originally hoped for. Once again, Ravenpuff, I am sorry for the unnecessary and inaccurate mischaracterization of your work here. --Wright Stuf (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC) This discussion is largely academic anyway, since the image in question is actually CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic) and as such can't be used without a fair-use rationale, and since the black and white version is free it would obviously fail WP:NFCCP point 1. I've tagged it for deletion on Commons anyway. FDW777 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Thank you for raising that issue. But it is not academic at all to the discussion which is the focus of this particular subsection. The question that was presented to various editors is why they did not simply switch from the colorized image to the monochrome version. I have yet to see an answer presented which explains this as not being willful degradation of our article. Now regarding copyright of the colorized image, I see your post to be highly relevant to the main section above. Should you decide to delete it here, and repost up there, I would be perfectly fine with you likewise deleting my reply here. I still do not understand the reason why you say that use here on Wikipedia of that image should not be allowed. My understanding is that my act of uploading it to the Commons was in line with the creator's permissions. I am not a lawyer. And perhaps someone will present an explanation in which the light bulb will click on for me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC) You uploaded the colourized image to commons with a Creative Commons 2.5 free licence, when the original file on Flicker was under a "CC BY-NC-ND 2.0" licence, which is a non-free licence. Those are incompatible licences and thus your upload was a copyright violation, as it did not comply with the image's licence. You can note the image has been deleted from Commons, which renders quite a bit of this discussion moot. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Ok, that's an explanation that makes sense to me. THANK YOU for that. I apparently had made a major error in interpreting what the Flickr license actually meant. Curious that a copyright violation would go undetected for more than one year. As for things becoming moot by that deletion, it actually does absolutely nothing to answer the question as to why no one, yourself included, opted for the solution of swapping the colorized image to the black&white image. To this very moment, my own view is that it is an excellent image to have in our article. There is one more image of the Wright Flyer which is the only other image I myself am aware of where it was photographed actually flying. The famous infobox image, and this other image. A grand total of two (2). Yet no one knows about this second pic. My own opinion is that it belongs in the article along with that Dec 14th image. No one switched to the b&w. Everyone deleted it. Repeatedly, and persistently. Voicing objection only to the fact that it was colorized. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Well I can't speak for any other editors, but in my case, I removed it and didn't replace it with anything else, because the article already has a lot of images and didn't need anymore, especially in the section where that image appeared. It was down in the "Specifications" section and overlapped into the "See also" section. It just added to too much clutter, regardless of the other issues. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Uses global dating system

This article uses the global dating system (dd/mm/yy). Why am I ranting about this? Well the flight, took place in Kill Devil, North Carolina, which is in the United States. The United States, however uses their own dating system (mm/dd/yy). I request to fix this. Please change all the dates in the article to fit mm/dd/yy. This is to give convenience to American readers. MLBFanAdrien (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. The article originally used MDY dates, but because of a mistaken change to the article date in May 2021, the date style was changed in December 2021. As such, I've started changing it back. BilCat (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Solving mystery of this photo

This photo shows the Wrights and party(the men from the Life Saving Station) bringing the Flyer back to the camp after the fourth flight on December 17, 1903. The airplane is in a state of disassembly and transit with the rudder laying on the ground in back of the machine. The engine and props have stopped. The front elevator has been detached and is in a more upright position as it had been twisted over and semi crushed after the fourth flight. Importantly the machine has probably already been brought back several hundred feet from where it ended the 852ft flight by the time this photo was snapped. One can compare the photo with the more clear frontal photo of the machine just after Wilbur's landing.

front view of Wright 1903 machine after fourth flight.

Koplimek (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, what's the mystery of the photo? Furthermore, will solving this mystery help improve the article? - ZLEA _T\^C 22:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, what is your point? - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Because many people think the aeroplane is still flying. There was a caption by early flying historian Carroll Gray, it has now been reduced to a citation, and now essentially out of site. So I added some clearup.Koplimek (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I can see how people might think that, but I don't know that it is a problem on Wikipedia. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Liking the uncropped version better, it gives a fuller experience of what the site looked like. I haven't looked if it's there yet, but if it is real, and seems to be, the uncropped version could be used on the page somewhere in a large enough size to provide the feeling of the scene. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See Wright Flyer#Flight trials at Kitty Hawk. It's been there awhile. BilCat (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I added it for context and added the other front photo. Cropped versions are at Wikicommons.Koplimek (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:First flight2.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 17, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-12-17. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

The Wright Flyer, also known as the Kitty Hawk, made the first sustained flight by a manned heavier-than-air powered and controlled aircraft – an airplane – on December 17, 1903. Invented and flown by the Wright brothers, it marked the beginning of the pioneer era of aviation. The Wright Flyer is a single-place biplane design with anhedral (drooping) wings, front double elevator and rear double rudder. It used a 12-horsepower (9-kilowatt) gasoline engine powering two pusher propellers. Employing "wing warping", it was relatively unstable and very difficult to fly. The Wright brothers flew it four times in a location south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. The airplane flew 852 feet (260 m) on its fourth and final flight, but was damaged on landing, and minutes later was wrecked when powerful gusts blew it over. The aircraft never flew again but was shipped home and subsequently restored by Orville Wright. It was housed in the Science Museum in London from 1928 to 1948, and is now exhibited at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. This photograph, taken by John T. Daniels, a local member of the United States Life-Saving Service, shows the Wright Flyer seconds into its first flight in 1903.

Photograph credit: John T. Daniels; restored by Lise Broer

Recently featured:

• Common cuttlefish
• Tim Peake
• Raspberry