Talk:Wright brothers/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014

Made first aircraft not airplane.

8.225.204.2 (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, "Airplane" is a US word and "Aircraft" an internationally used one. Currently, there are 41 uses of aircraft and 36 uses of airplane - so it is already in the majority.
WP:COMMONALITY states "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." If Airplane was the only acceptable word in US English, then under ENGVAR, that should be used on relevant articles. However, as there is a word "common to all varieties of English" then COMMONALITY requires that it is used, even if other spellings exist.
I will change these unless an objecting editor can point to a clear guideline against this change. - Arjayay (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Done I've gone through and already replaced all instances of "airplane" to "aircraft" (excluding the ones used in <ref>...</ref> or in external links) as this article uses {{Use mdy dates}} which implies to me, a US citizen, that it should also be using ENGVAR. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I revised the wording to restore use of the word "airplane" in selected locations in the article. Sorry I didn't comment here earlier. "Aircraft" and "airplane" are not straightforward examples of English variation. They are different words which can have different meanings, although they are also often used interchangeably. The English variation that has been controversial is the airplane/aeroplane issue. "Aircraft," on the other hand, includes such things as gliders, balloons and helicopters. An "airplane," specifically, is a fixed-wing heavier-than-air flying device. Use of both words (airplane and aircraft) is appropriate in this article to serve two purposes: clear definition of terms and stylistic gracefulness. Note also, that the word "aircrafts," which was inserted in several places in this article, is improper: the plural of aircraft is spelled exactly as the singular. In sum, it would be quite strange for the Wright brothers article to elminate all use of the word "airplane." DonFB (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2014

Hyperlink Lilienthal to this page and why not say Otto Liliental, father of flight, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Lilienthal 72.204.153.96 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Already done. The first occurence of Lilienthal's name is already a wikilink. Using the nickname here doesn't appear as encyclopeadic style to me.— HHHIPPO 20:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In the original article Wright Brothers talk about a 16 HP engine not a 12 HP one

Quote Wikipedia "The Flyer had a wingspan of 40.3 ft (12.3 m), weighed 605 lb (274 kg)[57] and sported a 12 horsepower (8.9 kW) 180 lb (82 kg) engine.[58]" The story that keeps telling Flyer I 1903 had an 12 HP engine is simply a latter addition. In their letter addressed to L'Aérophile, Wright Brothers clearly state they used a 16 horsepower engine turning at 1200 revolutions/minute (see pag 17, bottom of the page, the paragraph before the last). There is absolutely no word about any 12 HP regime that engine may have had. Also one paragraph above, same brothers give the total weight of the engine including the flying wheel as being 62 kg not 82 kg. See the "Letter addressed by Wright Brothers to L'Aérophile and published in January 1904 at pag 16 to 18" (Pag 16 http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=1295018 ), (Pag 17 http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=1295019 ), (Pag 18 http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=1295020 ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Your source is an online discussion forum? Not reliable—we cannot use it. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My source is L'Aerophile (see here: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6553581w/f23.image.r=wright.langEN ) Quote - "« A la vitesse de 1.200 tours par minute, le moteur développe 16 chevaux-vapeur avec une consommation d'un peu moins de 4 kil. 500 de gazoline à l'heure." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is information from a source which has not been translated:

"At 1,200 revolutions per minute, it developed sixteen horsepower – but only for the first fifteen seconds after starting; after a minute or two it did not give more than about twelve horsepower."

Chapter VI - FIRST POWER FLIGHT. THE WRIGHT BROTHERS By Fred C. Kelly. A biography authorized by Orville Wright. Ballantine Books – New York. Copyright, 1943 and 1950, by Fred C. Kelly. DonFB (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(1) Attention WB talk in the letter to L'Aerophile (Jan 1904) of a 16 HP engine consuming 4.5 kg gasoline / hour! which means the motor worked long enough at 16 HP, otherwise that 4.5 kg/hour would have been the fuel consumption for the 12 HP regime not 16 HP. (2)Fred C. Kelly was a longtime friend of the Wright Brothers. Also the strong point of the book you have mentioned is not "technical details" (see http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1955304.The_Wright_Brothers ). L'Aerophile from Jan. 1904 which published a letter sent by WB themselves is a much more authoritative source than a friend of the two brothers who based heavily his book on latter accounts told by Orville Wright, which finally means we have to thrust what the brothers told us years after the claimed 1903 flights. Again you are dismissing primary sources in favor of tales written by a humorist and journalist (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_C._Kelly ). What happened in fact, WB came latter with a 12 HP engine claiming it was the one that powered the 1903 plane. Realizing the discrepancy, WB and various pro WB authors tried to wash it somehow by adding an explanation "16 HP but only for 15 seconds". It would not have made any sense to talk, in that letter published by L'Aerophile in Jan. 1904, of a 16 HP engine if the motor had generated 16 HP only for 15 sec and no more than 12 HP in flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A few quotes from the Wright Brothers, from the collected letters (paperback edition, Da Capo Press, 2002)

"Since putting in heavier springs to actuate the valve...we have increased its power to nearly 16" (28 Junne 1903), p.94 but also (talking about the Dec 1903 flight "Our engine ran at 1030 rpm, which is not much, if any, more than three fourths of its maximum power" (7 Jan 1904, p.127). The book, incidentally, is edited by Fred Kelly. This seems to imply that it's practical output was about 12 without redlining it TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Prof. Octave Chanute witnessed a 500 m flight performed by Wright Brothers before Nov. 9, 1905

Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not reply to trolling comments from the IP editor in Montreal. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In a letter written on Nov. 9, 1905, Octave Chanute says he saw a 500 m flight performed by Wright Brothers, I quote: "I have not seen with my own eyes anything excepting a short flight of about half a kilometer"!!! See "Letter of Octave Chanute to captain Ferber published by L'Aérophile, December 1905. pag 268 (middle of the page)" ( https://archive.org/details/larophile13besa ). Why does nobody talk about this letter? It would be the first ever confirmation coming from an eye witness before anybody else in the world had flown an aircraft (1906). Do not say it is me the first to discover the letter. What Chanute said on Nov. 9, 1905 would pull Wright brothers out of the trash bin of liars and establish them as first flyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC) They are already well-known as first with only the most fringe people disagreeing, but thanks. You can certainly include something in the "European skepticsm" section if you feel it is necessary. Ckruschke (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke Octave Chanute is unfortunately the only witness claiming, before 1908, he had seen Wright brothers flying in a powered airplane. In the same letter from Nov. 9, 1905 to captain Ferber, O. Chanute also advises Ferber to thrust Wright brothers regarding their extremely long claimed flights from 1905. However, L'Aérophile doubts the sincerity of Prof. Chanute.

Wright brothers flew in May 1908 using 40 HP french engines

Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not reply to trolling comments from the IP editor in Montreal. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The articles, "Aviation in US. Seven french engines for Wright brothers", L'Aérophile, Apr. 1, 1908, pag. 127" (see http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=1297907 ) which says that the french company Barriquaud-Mare had just delivered seven 40 HP Antoinette like plane engines to the Wright brothers and "Progress of the Wright airplane experiments", Scientific American, May 23, 1908 (see http://forum.softpedia.com/uploads/monthly_03_2014/post-499864-0-45829600-1395329896_thumb.jpg ) that also talks about french engines, demonstrate, both of them, that the brothers needed in May 1908 far more powerful engines for far less spectacular flights than the ones performed in 1905. Also on Aug. 8, 1908, Wright brothers using same french engines flew only 1 min and 45 sec. in France, far from 38 minutes in Dayton in 1905 when a considerable weaker engine was used. These brothers have simply no credibility and only their officially witness flights can be trusted. The rest is their own fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC) The more powerful engines were required for take off since the Wright Brothers used the weighted sled prior to this to give the airplane the extra boost it needed. There was no one in the US making small powerful engineers besides the Wrights and Glenn Curtis and its well established that the aircraft industry stagnated in the pre-war years due to the Wright's protectionist practices. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say about them procurring French engines in 1908 - from what you say they were inferior in operation to the Wright's own engine - so your point is...? Ckruschke (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke (1) The french engines (40 HP) were superior, to those the Wright brothers claimed they built (less than 20 HP), being more powerful. (2) The brothers used the same catapult, the same extra boost, as in 1905 in all their witnessed flights performed in 1908. In conclusion more powerful engines were logically not needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Correct, they didn't "need" more powerful engines in 1908, but were probably glad to have them. However, your conclusion that therefore their statements about their previous flights are "their own fiction" is merely your own fanciful opinion, to which you're entitled, but which flies in the face of more than 100 years of published information and, yes, the WB own documentary proof, undisputed by all reputable historians. The 1-minute 45-second flight you mentioned was Wilbur's very first in France; about a month later he flew 90 minutes (after Orville had made hour-long flights in the U.S.). DonFB (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC) I base all my affirmations on primary sources and not latter judgements. The so called reputed historians are just pro Wright Brothers propagandists who simply selected what they liked from primary sources and made up a nice story for the public, disregarding all evidence that throws serious doubts regarding the claimed 1903-1905 flights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Interestingly, the primary sources of which you're fond include voluminous amounts of documentation by the WB themselves of their work and their success. Try some affirmation based on that. You're right, though: propaganda does exist--not in the writings of respected historians, but in misguided scribblings that sometimes show up on these pages. DonFB (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC) There is mention of the seven "French" engines of 1908 here: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f260.image.r=wright.langEN. They are intended to be delivered as "seven perfect copies" of the model brought by the american aviator. --Askedonty (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Strange picture - On Dec. 14, 1903, W. Wright flew with the two propellers on the left side of the plane, one of them not connected to the engine!

Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not reply to trolling comments from the IP editor in Montreal. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The picture labeled LC-W86- 20, (see http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/wri/item/2001696254/ ) from the Library of Congress, shows W. Wright just after he landed the plane on Dec. 14, 1903, damaging the front-rudder (the canard double wing). The flight was powered but the airplane landed below the altitude where it had taken off. The strange thing about this picture is that the plane (see one of the large size versions of the image) has both propellers on its left side, the leftmost propeller being not connected to the engine. There is simply no logical explanation about this oddity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk • contribs) "There is simply no logical explanation about this oddity." Indeed, a perfect description of the posts above and below. I recommend an optometrist. DonFB (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Ok. It was my mistake. I was mislead by the optical illusion the image contains. I should have studied the photography more carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The 59 sec. flight made on Dec. 17, 1903 was a power assisted descending flight at best

Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not reply to trolling comments from the IP editor in Montreal. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Another picture (see LC-W861-23 http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/wri/item/2001696495/) with Flyer I just after its flight of 59 sec. and 260 m (Dec. 17, 1903) shows the plane at the foot of a tall and large sand dune, oriented as coming from the hill. It should be noted that L'Aérophile noted in its January 1904 number at pag. 18 (see http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=1295020 ) that the Wright brothers had not communicated (in their letter published by L'Aérophile) the altitudes of the departure and landing points. L'Aérophile had doubts the flights on Dec. 17, 1903 were true powered flights. In conclusion, the picture LC-W861-23 comes to confirm what the french aeronautical journal suspected, an engine assisted descent which is not a true powered flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk • contribs) These posts carry me back to the age of Galileo. Even the Church recanted its disinformative propaganda, though it took several hundred years. DonFB (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC) This Montreal IP editor is apparently grasping at straws to try and remove the Wright Brothers as the first to fly. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Yes. I wonder what the color of the sky is on his planet. Either that or he's trying to (unsuccessfully) win a war for the French that was lost over 100 yrs ago... Ckruschke (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke Honestly, you are not right in this case unless you prove the plane did not come from the hill. There is no optical illusion here. According to the Wright brothers, the last flight from Dec. 17, 1903 took place with a 9.2 m/s headwind. In the letter addressed to L'Aérophile they "forgot" to mention they had flown down the hill and had landed at a lower altitude than the one of the departure point and also that the 9.2 m/s wind, blowing toward the top of the sand dune, had produced a vertical wind component that had aided the plane to stay aloft. These two things (1) Altitude_departure - Altitude_arrival >> 0 (positive) and (2) Vertical_component_of_the_wind >> 0 (positive) disqualifies the claimed 59 sec. flight of 1903 as a true powered flight. Regarding nationalism your guesses about me are totally wrong. The IP misleads many times. I do not believe a french national was the first to fly in a motorized plane. However, I also do not like impostors like the Wright brothers and also pro Wright Brothers fanatics with little knowledge about planes that control all aviation pages on Wikipedia and plague them with the mythology created around the two brothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Incorrect, again. You claim they flew from a hill on 12/17/1903, so the burden of proof is on you, not anyone else to prove they didn't. In any letter they wrote to L'Aérophile, they did not describe a powered successful flight in 1903 from a hill. Another of the primary sources you like to affirm reads: "started from level with engine power alone"--verbatim from their telegram home on the day of the flights (see, also, another primary source: a rather well-known photograph of the airplane taking off on 12/17/03, not from a hill). C'mon, spill the beans: who do you think invented the airplane--Darius Green, Icarus, Mighty Mouse? DonFB (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC) This Montreal guy is trying to argue against hundreds of reliable sources. It's a fool's game to play with him. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Some of the verbiage is reminiscent of the still-blocked AviationHist1...one wonders. I do feel a need to refute, briefly I hope, the occasional crackpot theories that clutter these pages; you never know who else is reading, and it's good not to let imbecile rhetoric, masquerading as research, go completely unanswered. It's humanitarian--shall we heartlessly let the trolls starve? DonFB (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC) The picture I posted shows the plane at the foot of a tall sand dune oriented as coming from the hill and landing at the foot of the hill. This is photographic solid evidence the plane glided down the slope. You say no! If no, then you have to come with some other evidence, stronger than mine, of course primary sources not so called reputed historians. Regarding your guesses about my identity, you are again wrong. I am not an old enemy of you as you believe. I am a new user who simply discovered that something is terrible wrong with the experiments the Wright Brothers had done in 1903. I am not the first and I will not be the last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "I am not the first and I will not be the last." Ah, the first accurate statement you've made--very regrettably. DonFB (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The first flight was just a hop down the slope

Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not reply to trolling comments from the IP editor in Montreal. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(1) I am seeing the Library of Congress considers the first flight on Dec. 17, 1903 a "flight" despite the fact it was no longer than 120 feet or 36.6 m (see http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652085/ ) while first flights in France, some of them longer, are considered hops. It is not clear where the border between a hop and a flight might be. (2) If you enlarge the image from here http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652085/ (TIFF 17.2mb is a good resolution) which in its low resolution appears to show Flyer I taking off from a relatively horizontal surface, you will have the surprise to see a visible slope going down in front of the plane. The landing point (about 36.6 m ahead of Flyer I) is clearly below the takeoff position. In consequence this so called first powered flight is also nothing more than an engine assisted descent which disqualifies it as a true motorized flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "It is not clear where the border between a hop and a flight might be." This is actually a good point. Professional historians (and rational amateurs) recognize that an 852-foot flight of almost a minute over level terrain is indeed a flight, not a hop. Your personal assessment of the photographic record, however, is not quite strong enough to overturn a century of published research, biographies and aviation histories and the primary documentation (which you claim to rely upon) of the WB themselves. You've already admitted a mistake in your slapdash photo interpretation. Reality awaits; embrace it. DonFB (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC) The so called professional historians is in fact you because the Wikipedia page about the Wright Brothers and many other articles about aviation are full of your own modifications. The opinion of real professional historians is simply not visible. Large chunks of text do not cite any sources and others indicate doubtful articles or simply unrelated bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Which real professional historians' opinions are not visible? DonFB (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Any historian, that cites evidence (about the supposed planes and flights from 1903 - 1905) coming only from the Wright Brothers themselves and presents this evidence as undeniable facts, can not be considered serious. For instance "The Wrights wrote to several engine manufacturers, but none met their need for a sufficiently lightweight powerplant. They turned to their shop mechanic, Charlie Taylor, who built an engine in just six weeks in close consultation with the brothers.[54](Crouch 1989, p.245)". This is just a claim as long as there is no evidence Charlie Taylor and the two brothers had the capacity to design and build exceptional internal combustion engines, something that was not available on the US market. Regarding some opinions that should be cited, you can find here http://archives.californiaaviation.org/pilot/msg00017.html a few names of aviation experts who where not able to pilot Flyer I and drew the conclusion that "Wright brothers' plane was nearly impossible to fly". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia functions in a manner differently than you imagine. Articles here are written based on reliable sources. According to fundamental Wikipedia policy, your personal disagreement with the sources (or any other editor's disagreement) is not admissable in an article. If possible, you may find and use other reliable sources that contradict or disagree with information in an article. If you were actually to read the complete WB article, you would see that it already includes information about the AIAA experiments by Prof. Culick and others (at this writing, it's cited in footnote 66). Your personal assessment of things like Charlie Taylor's technical skill is simply irrelevant. You are, of course, free to disagree with the verdict of history as presented by reliable sources, but your disagreement remains only your opinion and does not invalidate that verdict as described by reliable sources. I advise you to learn how Wikipedia actually functions by studying the following: Reliable Sources, Verifiablilty, No Original Research, Neutral Point of View. DonFB (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Your so called reliable sources are in fact your personal opinions in some cases hidden under the cover of dubious sources and interpretations. I will give a few examples (1) "Their bicycle shop employee Charlie Taylor became an important part of the team, building their first airplane engine in close collaboration with the brothers."(No citation), (2) " Although not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft" (No citation). Who exactly flew before 1903 in a man carrying plane? (3) "The brothers' fundamental breakthrough was their invention of three-axis control, which enabled the pilot to steer the aircraft effectively and to maintain its equilibrium.[4][5][6][7]". Citation [4] talks about wing-warping, roll control, not three axis stability, [5] has no author and cites no sources (its value is zero), [6] same as [5], no author, no citations, [7] says at one instant "They faced and effectively solved, to the extent they required, problems of stability and control about all three axes." citing Culick who always maintained Flyer I was unstable. Also [7] makes "An engineering analysis of the Wright brothers’ 1902 glider (not of 1903 motorized plane!)". The glider had a different dynamic from that of "Flyer I" which had thrust beside other forces that act on an unpowered flying machine. In conclusion your citations are put there just to support your own views. All of them are dubious and have no value. A three axis controllable glider does not necessarily mean a tree axis controllable plane if you equip it with an engine even if the mass of the motor, fuel and propellers is zero! The airplane built by W. Wright in France in 1908 (which for sure was not fictitious) was manageable but different from Flyer I and had dihedral stability like the french planes of that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I do agree with what the sources say, but they don't become unreliable because I agree with them. If you read the two most authoritative biogs of the WB (by Crouch and Howard), you'll learn of Charlie Taylor's importance. If you can find reliable sources to contradict that information, you're free to do so. Wikipedia policy does not require that every cited article have a named author; it's sufficient that the institutional source itself be reliable (for example, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Park Service, and the wright-brothers.org site, all reliable sources to which you're objecting). Regarding your friend Prof. Culick, he says of the WB: "Technically, their greatest fundamental achievement was their invention of three-axis aerodynamic control." The source for that quote is elsewhere on this Talk page. Your personal "analysis" of the gliders and Flyer and your personal conclusions therefrom are irrelevant. I urge you again to read the information at the links I posted above and learn how Wikipedia functions. DonFB (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC) A source that does not make citations which can be tracked to primary sources, documents of the time, archeological evidence, or experiments done by specialists has no value. The time when we had to thrust historians like the propagandist Crouch, because there was no practical way to access primary sources without internet, is gone. Regarding Culick, this is what he says: "The basis for their patent, granted in 1906 and never broken, was their two-axis control of lateral motion, in general, not for their particular aircraft design, and not including pitch control.", Source - http://authors.library.caltech.edu/11239/1/CULaiaaj03.pdf .In conclusion, Wright Brothers' patent is not about three but two-axis control, a reliable information that can be tracked to the patent issued on May 22, 1906. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Your first sentence illustrates your continued disregard of Wikipedia's guidance on the use of sources, which is why I have urged you to learn how this website operates. Prof. Culick's comment about the WB patent does not alter his statement about their invention of three-axis control. Your comment about Dr. Crouch illustrates the crudity of your very unfortunate anti-historical campaign. DonFB (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"They carried the machine up on the Hill", John T. Daniels, eye witness

Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not reply to trolling comments from the IP editor in Montreal. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The fact that Flyer I just glided, aided partly by the engine, is confirmed by John T. Daniels, an eye witness. Read the following letter - "Manteo NC, June 30 —- 1933, Dear friend, I Don’t know very much to write about the flight. I was there, and it was on Dec the 17, — 1903 about 10 o’clock. They carried the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track, and started the engine ... and he went about 100 feet or more, and then Mr. Wilbur taken the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track and he went off across the Beach about a half a mile ... Sincerely, John T. Daniels, Manteo NC, Box 1W" (source: http://wrightstories.com/eyewitness-account-of-first-flight-by-john-daniels/ ). The witness twice writes he saw the machine being carried up the hill before each of the two flights he remembers. This information corroborates with two pictures (1. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652085/ (magnify it please to see the slope) 2. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/wri/item/2001696495/ ) showing Flyer I going down a considerable slope and after it had landed in front of a large sand dune, respectively. Also the article "The flying machine of the Wright brothers", L'Aérophile, Jan. 1904, pag. 16-18 has a comment close to its end reading - "Mr. Orville Wright does not tell us the difference in height between the departure and the landing point". The letter of John Daniels and the two pictures, allegedly made on Dec. 17, 1903, come to confirm what L'Aérophile had already suspected in Jan. 1904. The plane landed many meters below the takeoff altitude which disqualifies the flights on Dec. 1903 as true powered flights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Daniels' letter, which is well-known, reflects a slightly faulty memory of events that occurred three decades earlier. You're understandably silent about another primary source, the WB own telegram the same day, which states they "started from level." Your personal photo "analysis" illustrates your continued insistence on ignoring Wikipedia's rule against original research, one of the basic principles of this website I have advised you to learn by reading information at the links I posted above. DonFB (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC) (1) The photographic evidence I presented is not original research but strong evidence the brothers just glided helped by the engine on Dec. 17, 1903. If you ignore it you are in denial. I am seeing you hide under various pretexts just to distort the truth about the flights. (2) Which author and based on what sources says that the plane was not carried up the hill for a new takeoff, contradicting what John Daniels wrote twice in his letter from 1933. (3) Wright Brothers started from level for a few meters ( this is the telegram http://www.wright-brothers.org/TBR/History%20Images/Dec17_Telegram.jpg ) but the rail went quickly down the slope and they do not pretend they landed at the same level which is essential for a powered flight to be considered valid. Secondly, WB talk about a 57 sec. flight not 59 seconds as they latter claimed. This is another argument to doubt things written in that telegram which is formulated in such a way to mislead. Why is there no word in the letter written by WB to L'Aerophile and published in Jan. 1904 about them starting from level? Why did they omitted this essential detail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "The photographic evidence I presented..." Your phrase represents the epitome of original research. No authoritative historian says they flew from a hill on Dec. 17. DonFB (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC) The eye witness John T. Daniels wrote twice in the same letter that Flyer I had been carried up the hill before each flight he saw. You refuse primary sources, primary evidence in favor of a historian (Crouch) who does not cite sources in his work. For you, primary sources is original research but only if you do not like the information they contain. If you like them, anything can pass, even personal thoughts. For instance, this text "Although not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft, the Wright brothers were the first to invent aircraft controls that made fixed-wing powered flight possible." (search for it on Wikipedia) does not cite any source. Who exactly flew before the Wright Brothers? It is not clear. Dubious statement. Also, "the first to invent aircraft control" in not supported by any citation. WB did not invent ailerons, they did not invent the vertical tail rudder or horizontal canard wings. The patent published on May 22, 1906 just talks about a control method in which the vertical rudder is connected to the wing-warping mechanism. WB never used this method in public demonstrations starting with Aug. 1908. People saw them with a plane having dihedral roll stability like the french planes (not anhedral wings as Flyer I) and also wing-warping was no longer connected to the vertical rudder, same like the french planes (which already used true ailerons, far superior). Not clear what kind of breakthrough WB made. Finally their planes become identical to European ones and not the opposite as it should be if WB had really made a great discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC) See Early flying machines for information about pre-WB aircraft experiments. Your naive criticism of work by credentialed historians grows tiresome. You are completely misinformed about the state of the art in France before demonstrations by Wilbur, from whom the Europeans learned 3-axis control. Curl up with a WB biography (I recommend Crouch or Howard--both extensively footnoted, you'll be happy to know) to learn the history. I can't hold your hand through the entire process. DonFB (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC) I do not see any evidence on Early flying machines (that appears to be heavily modified by you, so not credible) that any man carrying motorized flying machine took off before those controversial flights in Dec. 1903. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thrust Tom Crouch and do not believe the Wright Brothers

Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not reply to trolling comments from the IP editor in Montreal. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is what Tom Crouch says without any citation - "When complete with a full radiator, gasoline, oil, and accessories, it (the engine) weighed some 200 pounds." In fact, in their letter to L'Aérophile (see Pag 17 http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=1295019 ), the Wright brothers give the total weight of the engine including the carburetor and flywheel as being 152 pounds. They do not talk about radiator, fuel, oil or some unspecified accessories. Tom Crouch is simply adding 48 more pounds just because he feels they had to be there. The much quoted aviation historian Tom Crouch has in fact a degree in Arts and a Ph.D in history, both of them obtained in Ohio (what a big coincidence). He does not have any technical degree, in conclusion being unable to asses the technical information about the planes and gliders built or allegedly made by the Wright brothers at various moments of time. For instance the book "The Wright Brothers and the Invention of the Airplane (2002)" by Tom Crouch see, https://archive.org/details/firstfligtwrigh00crou (the citation I made a few lines above is from this work), is nothing more than a piece of popular science literature addressed to people below 14 years of age. I see there nice pictures esthetically arranged (the degree in art Crouch has is easily visible) but nearly zero citations. The author is throwing one affirmation after the other without quoting any source, everything being written in a naive stile specific to books for primary school minors. 90% of what Tom Crouch says does not agree with primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC) I recommend you publish your own website/book/journal to promote your personal theories and opinions about history and historians. They don't belong here. DonFB (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wing Warping was not invented by the Wright Brothers

Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not reply to trolling comments from the IP editor in Montreal. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is not me the one who discovered Wing Warping had not been invented by WB but Tom Crouch who in a letter to an enemy states: "wing torsion ... was first applied in practice by Edson F. Gallaudet in his 1897 craft, tested on Long Island Sound and now on public display at the NASM." (see, http://www.flightjournal.com/blog/2013/03/27/dr-crouch-responds-to-john-brown/ ). Wikipedia seems to support Crouch, quote, "Edson Fessenden Gallaudet (April 21, 1871 – July 1, 1945) was a pioneer in the field of aviation, being the first person to experiment with warped wings in 1896." ( source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edson_Fessenden_Gallaudet ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC) The WB were the first to conceive of wing-warping as a roll control method; before them, wing twisting was imagined (by Mouillard in particular) as a directional technique using left-right drag in level flight. Your aviation history education needs broadening. DonFB (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Again you are not documented enough. Wing-warping as a roll control method was used by Edson Gallaudet in 1898, see http://www.flyingmachines.org/gallau.html . The Wright Brothers simply obtained in 1906 a patent for something already tested in 1898 by somebody else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC) The article makes no mention of roll control; it says "lateral" control and gives no sign a workable method was "already tested." The WB were the first to intend warping to bank or roll the machine for turns, mimicking the action of birds. DonFB (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC) The "Lateral Control" of Gallaudet is "Roll Control". Ask your favorite historian Tom Crouch (croucht@si.edu). The craft Gallaudet made still exists and can be seen at NASM where Crouch works. You also can consult this Wikipedia article ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di%C3%A8dre_%28avion%29 ) that says: "Stabilité en roulis. La stabilité latérale d'un avion est en général nulle (indifférente) ou faiblement négative." which clearly put the equal sigh between Roll Stability and Lateral Stability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Anon Editor: This is now the 9th thread that you have started in a vain attempt to undermine the clear and documented history of the Wright Brothers' efforts through the insertion of your, often dubious and/or misinterpreted, original research. I'm not sure what axe you think you need to grind, but the issue was put to a rest decades ago. Therefore, I would suggest that you take DonFB up on his suggestion and either publish a book or start your own webpage because none of this trivial nonsense belongs on Wikipedia. Ckruschke (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke I have made no original research! Everything I said is supported by primary sources. The fact that a few apparently different Wikipedia editors are saying the same bad things against me, without supporting their so called evidence by anything, not even with citations from their preferred authors, is suspicious. It is impossible that two different people think exactly in the same wrong way, make the same mistakes. Wikipedia was a while ago a free encyclopaedia. It is no longer now, being controlled by a poorly documented guardian with an agenda who rejects anything which does not support his own views. No matter what you try to say wing-warping (see my comments above) was not the creation of the Wright Brothers and they were not the first to test it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, you have used primary sources. Many of them. However, your WP:OR is in your (faulty) interpretations of these sources in the vain attempt to undermine the work of the Wright Brothers. None of us here are "guarding" the Wright Brothers legacy or this Wikipedia page or even "rejecting" the truth. We are simply pointing out the fallacies in your reasoning as you seem to enjoy taking one or two pieces of information and then making a wild leap into synthesizing something else. This is also against Wikipedia's encyclopedic rules. It is not reputable scholarship to make a conclusion first (such as "The Wright Brothers are frauds") and then attempt to find information that you can twist into furthering this conclusion. Instead, it is what is generally termed as slander or libel which has no place in Wikipedia's WP:NPOV requirements. So yes, Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia", but this does not mean that anyone can post anything they want. Unfortunately your "facts" have repeatedly been found wanting. So this isn't an "us" problem - this is a "you" problem. Ckruschke (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Pictures from May 1908, The Wrights Brothers' plane caught flying low in front of a tall sand dune

Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not reply to trolling comments from the IP editor in Montreal. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The pictures can be found here, (L'Aerophile 1 July 1908 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f260.image.r=wright.langEN ). They still glided down the slope. How can I believe that the two brothers were able to fly about 40 minutes in 1905 in Dayton above a flat pasture if they still needed a hill and strong winds to fly in May 1908. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC) What is this picture meant to prove? (I can see the hill, and, just about, the aircraft, but not the wind) your insane habit of scattergunning your nonsense all over the page ensures that your ranting is impossible to follow, even if it was worth bothering with. TheLongTone (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC) In a letter published in L'Aerophile, in which the two brothers gave technical details about all their claimed flights in May 1908, they also specified the wind speed as being between 4 and 9 m/s. (see L'Aerophile 15 June 1908, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f232.image.r=wright%20mai.langEN ). The wind was there no matter you want to see it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a forum

Okay, it has been interesting to see the discussion taking place here during the last few days, but the talk page is not a discussion forum for the general subject, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Let's restrict discussion to suggestions and proposals to improve this biography article. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably the only way to deal with this idiot is to ignore him.TheLongTone (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is true, though I don't always resist temptation. DonFB (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I got busy and hatted most of those trolling discussions. Please ignore the Montreal IP editor unless the guy is able to put together an actionable suggestion for article improvement. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on the extent of the problem, our Montreal friend has been editing disruptively for more than a year. Editing as 24.203.73.246 starting in February 2013, he was blocked once for vandalism. Then he started editing as 70.83.160.23 and was blocked twice, once for edit warring and once for personal attacks. He has been editing as 70.83.114.138 since February 2014. He is consistently interested in pushing down the achievements of the Wright brothers while repairing the reputations of Romanian aviation pioneers Traian Vuia[1] and Henri Coandă.[2] Whatever his talents, he is not here to build the encyclopedia, but to Right Great Wrongs. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your suppositions are wrong. I filled a complain about you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Binksternet - I assumed that this was what was going on so it is helpful to have this confirmed. Ckruschke (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

There will be no confirmation. Vandalism accusations are baseless simply because I have never modified any Wikipedia article. As required, in my complain I submitted about Binksternet I also mentioned the other usernames involved in discussions with me, DonFB, TheLongTone, Ckruschke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that besides his personal stamina what explains the IP's obstination is the "Ideas about control" paragraph. 70' obviously, doesn't like the idea of a plane without a tail and he is not ready to admit that the Wrights were very severely experimenting. The key to theory in that biographical article is that "Ideas" paragraph. What I'd challenged in it is its thread about Lilienthal. The brothers couldn't have definitely challenged his idea about control before they'd started gliding themselves. --Askedonty (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Askedonty - Much apologies, but I'm having trouble following your premise/statement. Could you please tell me the specific edit that you would propose on the paragraph you are citing?

Oh and 70.83.114.138, thanks for naming me in the complaint. I'd hate to excluded in the fun. Ckruschke (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

WB and Lilienthal

@Ckruschke. Their choice of an anhedral configuration, which is not the most obvious nor the easiest to control, is so much in concordance with Lilienthal "pendulum" setting that they inherit the most of his experience directly. So the fact that they have to develop a different system of control does not seem to come from Lilienthal's ideas. --Askedonty (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

More precisely, Lilienthal was not yet engaged into developing an aeroplane. Regarding that aspect he was merely gathering facts: to separate the resultant air force in its lift and drag components; the "polar diagram". The formula used on http://www.lilienthal-museum.de is "solving the initial problem of flight". That he did, but befor his death he was still merely brushing aside the question of motorization. In consequence his shifting of weight technique has nothing to do with aviation. It's only an experimental shortcut. Thus I don't see that he should be presented as having been contradicted by the most dedicated of his followers, unless they explicitly stated they did. --Askedonty (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What the article says is 1) that the Wrights considered Lilienthal's use of moving his body to control the aircraft was an unsatisfactory method: you yourself call it an experimental shortcut Very far from being a contradiction. 2) That they rejected the tables formulated by Lillienthal as being inaccurate...which they did. I don't see that any of this denies or misrepresents Lilienthal's work.TheLongTone (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So basically this is the text that should be deleted or at least modified, "Although agreeing with Lilienthal's idea of practice, the Wrights saw that his method of balance and control by shifting his body weight was inadequate.[29] They were determined to find something better."The method was inadequate for a powered plane or a large glider but not for the gliders built by Lilienthal which are the ancestors of modern hang-gliders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_gliding) that are controlled in the same way as Lilienthal's and not using ailerons and a vertical rudder, both of them inneficient and useless complications in the particular case of hand-gliders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I would be ageeable to the following wording:

"...the Wrights saw that his method of balance and control by shifting his body weight would be inadequate for a powered flying machine. They were determined to find something better."

The WB greatly admired Lilienthal, but recognized that the method he used for control could not be adapted to powered machines. DonFB (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DonFB - I second your wording change. Ckruschke (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Disagree, "powered" is not necessary. They were working with wing-warping from the word go, they didn't conduct some experiments and then decide to intoduce warping as a necessary change before adding an engine.TheLongTone (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, 'powered' is kind of a prerequisite for the sorts of flying in which shifting the body weight would be ineffectual, such as flying with passengers or cargo aboard, flying really fast, flying at high altitude where there is little oxygen and bitter cold, and flying in nasty weather. Shifting the body weight only works in fair weather and for very lightweight aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Binksternet. However the issue is somewhat moot considering your revelation below on the http://wrightstories.com website - isn't it? IMO the entire sentence should be striken/rewritten because it depends on text from that site for which we have no corroborating references to backup the dialogue/assertions. If we want to keep it, someone probably needs to contact Dr. Stimson and determine his sourcing for the articles on his web page. Ckruschke (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Agree too. It's clear that for anyone considering cargo weight shifting necessarily was to be leading to a dead-end (although there is something of its legacy in the autopilot (autopilot-friend-or-foe, Wild Blue Yonder). However considering simply the narrative structure, the present sentence could do if only it was not attached to the previous, thus, superficially, including Lilienthal in a critic he was not concerned with. I would then just drop "they wanted to find something better", which is to my eyes, a little bit too short even in the context. --Askedonty (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There is another problem with another text "The poor lift of the gliders led the Wrights to question the accuracy of Lilienthal's data". This site ( http://wrightstories.com/wrights-confused-over-calculation-of-lift/ ) says that "They (WB) incorrectly interpreted the Lilienthal tables by not understanding that the table only applied to the one wing shape that Lilienthal used in his study. The wings that the Wrights used in 1900 and 1901 had different aspect ratios as well as differences in the location of the maximum camber of the wing.".

I don't think you are looking at a reliable source. The website http://wrightstories.com has too many misspelled words, too much poor research. It looks like the blog of one man. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree Binksternet - This page is essentially a blog for Dr. Stimson. Considering he has many quoted statements/discussions by/between the Wright Bros, both in this article and in others, w/o providing any references to back up those statements, I don't know how we can gauge whether or not ANY of the text is correct. As far as I know its all fictionalized history (like the Jeff Shaara books). Ckruschke (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

(1) The book "A History of Aerodynamics, And Its Impact on Flying Machines" at page 232 says that, "They (Wright Brothers) used Lilenthal's coefficients incorrectly, which led to a factor-of-2-3 discrepancy between their calculated lift and measured lift". There is an entire discussion that has to be read and understood (page 232-233). It is clear WB misinterpreted the work of Lilenthal. (2) Also, the same book, talking about Smeaton's coefficient (page 312, 313) says, "He (Langley) measured a value of Smeaton's coefficient that was within 3% of today accepted true value". So it was Langley (amongst others) not WB the one that obtained first a precise value of Smeaton's coefficient. WB came to the conclusion of Langley. In conclusion this Wikipedia text, "On the basis of measurements of lift and wind during the 1901 glider's kite and free flights, Wilbur believed (correctly, as tests later showed) that the Smeaton number was very close to 0.0033, not the traditionally used 60 percent larger 0.0054, which would exaggerate predicted lift." is quite misleading because it gives the impression that the Wright Brothers made a great discovery by correcting Smeaton's coefficient by 60% which is not true because Langely had already corrected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems to make sense; however, see also page 216, from that same work. Wilbur found a 20% discrepancy regarding Smeaton's coefficient, this, all after his own calculations. Orville and Wilbur had not been much influenced by reading Langley if they had been at all, and they were primarily focusing on verifying Lilienthal's data. --Askedonty (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely, Wilbur Wright knew about the work of Langley regarding the determination of Smeaton's coefficient precise value. This is what Wilbur wrote to Octave Chanute, "…Professor Langley and also the Weather Bureau officials found that the correct coefficient of pressure was only about 0.0032, instead of Smeaton’s 0.005…". (Source, The birth of flight control, An engineering analysis of the Wright brothers’ 1902 glider - pag 703, middle of the first column, http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/eweb/fst/publications/2854.pdf ). It is self evident WB took the true value of Smeaton's coefficient from Langley and they had no real contribution in correcting this constant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In May 1904, the Wright Brothers just glided in front of journalists

Closing discussion per WP:NOTAFORUM. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is what WB themselves declared about their witnessed flight attempts in 1904, "In the spring of 1904 ... the new machine was heavier and stronger ... When it was ready for its first trial, every newspaper in Dayton was notified, and about a dozen representatives of the press were present. ... When preparations had been completed ... The machine, after running the length of the track, slid off the end without rising into the air at all. Several of the newspaper men returned the next day, but they were again disappointed. The engine performed badly, and after a glide of only sixty feet, the machine came to the ground. The reporters had now, no doubt, lost confidence in the machine, though their reports, in kindness, concealed it. Later, when they heard that we were making flights of several minutes' duration, knowing that longer flights had been made with air-ships, ... they were but little interested." (Source, The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane, The Century Magazine, Sep. 1908, pag 649, columns 3 and 4, http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-5 ). So this Wikipedia text is misleading, "They invited reporters to their first flight attempt of the year on May 23, on the condition that no photographs be taken. Engine troubles and slack winds prevented any flying, and they could manage only a very short hop a few days later with fewer reporters present. Some scholars of the Wrights speculate the brothers may have intentionally failed to fly in order to cause reporters to lose interest in their experiments.[73] Whether that is true is not known, but after their poor showing local newspapers virtually ignored them for the next year and a half." The two brothers had no intention to fail to fly in front of journalists and they did not perform any short true powered flight. They just glided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC) I see nothing misleading in the article text, but I see a four-year error in your prominent heading title. DonFB (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Yes you are right. I corrected the error. It's 1904 not 1908 as I had written before. The sentence in the article about "Some scholars of the Wrights speculate the brothers may have intentionally failed" is supported somewhat by Fred Howard who wrote, "it has also been suggested that their failure to fly was an ingenious deception to forestall future attention by the press." Howard does not name the source of the suggestion, and certainly does not attribute it to "some scholars". I'm removing the scholars bit. Otherwise, our Canadian friend has nothing concrete in his nonsensical assertion that the WBs were still just gliding in 1904 (or 1908). Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC) This is what the brothers themselves said in Sep. 1908 about the test in May 1904, "The engine performed badly, and after a glide of only sixty feet, the machine came to the ground.". They glided. It is clear. Anyway, I recommend you to read the entire article from here http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-1 because 90% of the stories repeated again and again by various authors are based on that text, which is nothing else but the Wright brothers' own version of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC) It is a ridiculous conclusion to think that a flight powered by an engine working poorly is a non-powered glide. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Powered or not it does not matter. WB used the word "a glide" not "a flight" or "a hop". If they considered they had performed "a glide" there is no reason for various authors to pretend a 60 feet flight took place in May 1904. If the engine does not have enough power the only thing a plane can do is to glide. In May 1904 WB failed to perform any true powered flight. This is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The 66% efficiency of the 1903 propeller not confirmed by wind tunnel tests

Wikipedia text not backed by enough evidence, "Wilbur made a March 1903 entry in his notebook indicating the prototype propeller was 66% efficient. Modern wind tunnel tests on reproduction 1903 propellers show they were more than 75% efficient under the conditions of the first flights, and actually had a peak efficiency of 82%. This is a remarkable achievement, considering that modern wooden propellers have a maximum efficiency of 85%.[57]". The project Wright Experience made a copy of what is known as the Wright brothers' 1903 propeller and measured its thrust (see http://www.wrightexperience.com/indepth/perform/index.htm ) obtaining "64 lbs thrust at 350 rpm" as compared to "67 lbs thrust at 350 rpm" measured by WB themselves. However, Wright Experience project does not confirm that 66% efficiency. Wright Experience did not measure it. They measured only the efficiency of a propeller used by WB in 1911, which is quite different from the one utilized in 1903, and found it to be 81.5%. Citation from Wright Experience, "The 1903 and 1904 propellers static thrust performances showed "very good to excellent agreement" with the Wright's own tests. The 1911 propellers efficiency was measured at 81.5%-an amazing result, as the best wooden propellers of today are capable of 84-85%.".

Isn't there a case for blocking this one trick pony?TheLongTone (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Accurate per citation in article text; not contradicted by article cited above. DonFB (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly reference 57 http://www.archive.today/0pne0 . Read it carefully. The Wikipedia text "Wilbur made a March 1903 entry in his notebook indicating the prototype propeller was 66% efficient." does not exist in ref. 57 which just says "they were confident enough in the test results to enable Wilbur, in his notebook entry of March 6, 1903, to predict that the efficiency of their full-scale propellers would be 66 percent. ". Wilbur just made some calculations and obtained an estimated efficiency of 66%, he did not measure it to confirm it was 66% indeed. This efficiency was never obtained by the people from Wright Experience project. The site http://www.archive.today/0pne0 says that many tests were effectuated and efficiencies between 75% and 82% were obtained which in not 66%. They also say they reconstructed, with the help of computers, the propellers using badly damaged parts of the original ones. However, in their reconstructions, they made some assumptions that could have alter the efficiency. In conclusion that 66% efficiency is not confirmed. When a team wants to replicate the results or predictions of some inventors the team has to obtain exactly the same results not much better!

Checking the context more carefully you will note that the article to which this page is related is not about the Wright Experience project. Regarding the 66% prediction anecdote, you can read about it in the book "A History of Aerodynamics, And Its Impact on Flying Machines", Cambridge University Press, 1998, at page 237. Please consider also, that a prediction sometimes is a different thing compared to a measurement in a wind tunnel. --Askedonty (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(1) In the article "The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane, O. and W. Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908, pag. 648-649, http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-5 ", WB themselves wrote, "Our first propellers, built entirely from calculations, gave in useful work 66 per cent. of the power expended. This was about one third more than had been secured by Maxim or Langley." The text is clear, the two brother calculated and then obtained a 66% efficiency. (2) Yes, the article is about WB but as long as it cites ref 57 (which is project Wright Experience) in connection with the propellers efficiencies I also had to mention Wright Experience. (3) Real efficiencies of propellers used in France in 1906, 1907 and 1908 till Aug 8, are needed to see exactly if this efficiency of 66% (or greater) was attained before the Wright Brothers' propellers became known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Santos-Dumont 1909 Demoiselle has a propeller whose shape suggests that it's probably worth an approximate 80% efficiency ( considering shape, date and what we know regarding the remarkable stability of that efficiency value through all the last past century ). His 1905 version (Wright_Story-Showing_the_World) is less convincing to that regard. Robert W. A. Brewer, The art of aviation: a handbook upon aeroplanes and their engines with notes upon propellers - 1913 , would perhaps tell more about it - I do not know where to find it. Besides, I doubt he concerns with airframes anterior to 1908 - if Wilbur Wright's performance was really overwhelming as Mr Archdeacon conceded it in late spring of 1908 --Askedonty (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

European propellers were generally laughable until people started using Lucien Chauviere's propellers: one was filled to the De Pischoff 1907 biplane but they were not in common use until 1909.TheLongTone (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have found a propeller, made by Lucien Chauviere, in L'Aerophile from May 15, 1908, pag. 182 (see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f192.image.r=helice.langEN ). Its shape is quite advanced. This is no doubt a high efficiency propeller. It is above the propellers presented by WB on Aug. 8, 1908 and clearly made before WB's propellers became known. Definitely, Europeans or other inventors did not learn from the Wright Brothers how to make efficient propellers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would still request for more data before finally risking an opinion about its efficiency, and the way it was designed; it seems to be very thin, possibly even hollowed inward, and could be empirically inspired from a naval screw propeller. What is very probable is that it is one of the very first applications of Lucien Chauviere's laminated wood patented technique, but not the future standart yet, although getting near enough of it - besides efficiency requirements were much less directly crucial for dirigibles, as this is about a dirigible propeller, than for taking off an aeroplane. According to this document the "Integrale" Chauviere propeller mounted on the 1909 Bleriot XI was the first (airplane) propeller resulting of a "rational" study. It might have been better than the Wright's 1903 own certainty. --Askedonty (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

However you could be right (quite logically if you're from Canada) that other inventors knew how to make efficient propellers in 1908. The A.E.A Red Wing had a dirigible-type propeller but its follower the White Wing, a laminated-wood model ( Glenn Curtiss's Life of Innovation: ISBN 0768008026 ). Where this laminated-wood model came from remains a mystery to me, what was its efficiency as well, it cannot be denied however that it must have been considered an improvement - otherwise why the change. I'll also admit that the information, as far as I know could be challenged. --Askedonty (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In that March 6, 1903 note with calculations regarding the efficiency (see http://www.localhangar.com/cgi-bin/clubs/pictures_pages.pl?POP=yes&CLUBNO=6&reason=show_page&PAGEID=116 ) WB simply applied a known relation, Efficiency_propeller = Thrust*Plane_speed/Power_available, 66%=90lbf*24mph/8.73HP. They simply needed a 90lbf propeller at 24mph considering a 8.73HP engine was available and they calculated that their propeller should be at least 66% efficient otherwise the required 90lbf thrust to keep the plane aloft would not have been reached. Their calculations simply shows how great the performance of the propeller should have been not how great it really was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Flyer I 1903 had a propeller placed underneath that revolved horizontally, according to an article signed W. Wright and published in Feb. 1904!!

"One of the propellers was set to revolve vertically and intended to give a forward motion, while the other underneath the machine and revolving horizontally, was to assist in sustaining it in the air. ... After the motor device was completed, two flights were made by my brother and two by myself on December 17th last." (Source, "The Experiments of a Flying Man", author Wilbur Wright, The Independent, Feb. 04, 1904, pag. 246, internet address http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001173/#seq-4 ). It has to be remarked that the one who wrote the text I cited is Wilbur Wright himself and not a journalist. Definitely, the flying machine W. Wright talked about in the article is not the one with two pusher propellers, well known from pictures published for the first time in September 1908 in "The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane" that appeared in The Century Magazine (see http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-1 , page 644 ). In conclusion, two different articles, written by the same Wright brothers and published more than four years and half apart, talk about two distinct airplanes (two different Flyer I) as flying on Dec. 17, 1903. The brothers definitely lied in one of the two texts or in both. There is no way they could have told the truth in both articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well-documented article printed as being written by Wilbur Wright but actually chucked together by a hack. Wilbur's letter to the editor of the Independent is in their collected letters. Do your homework.TheLongTone (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The article "The Experiments of a Flying Man" by W. Wright, Feb. 1904 in not listed by the Library of Congress as a fake (see http://www.loc.gov/item/wright002977/#about-this-item ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Professional historians and biographers examined this case of imposter authorship years ago. Their findings are in their books. Who are you arguing with? DonFB (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Flyer I with a propeller beneath appears in numerous publications as late as May 1906, and even latter, (ex. see http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-58 ). WB do not seem to protest against their airplane being shown in various pictures with a propeller turning in the horizontal plane. The big trouble with these Wright brothers is that nearly each article, either written by them or other people (impostors or not), has problems, contains things impossible or hard to explain. WB and also O. Chanute, in a lesser proportion, fed the publications with lies or misled them and finally put the blame on somebody else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Another inconsistency, an eye witness talks about flapping propellers. There is a large size article, "Fly Over St. Louis at 50 Miles an Hour.", Sunday Magazine - St. Louis Post Dispatch - April 21 1907, http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-65 ", containing (amongst other things) a short witness account in its end (bottom right), "Like a locomotive By A. I. Root, Medina, O., Who Witness Several of Wright Brothers' Flights. It was one of the grandest sights of my life. I stood in front of the machine as it came around a curve. Imagine, if you can, an aluminum locomotive, without wheels, but with 20-foot wings and big, flapping propellers, climbing up into the air right towards you. Such a tremendous flapping and snapping. Everyone was excited except the two Wrights. ...". First of all, none of the known airplanes made by WB resembles an aluminum locomotive and secondly they were not equipped with flapping propellers. A. I. Root (a real person) claimed he had witnessed a flying machine that has never existed. The entire article looks more like an investment scam. Most of the newspaper clippings ( see http://www.loc.gov/item/wright002799/ ) collected by the Wright Brothers, especially those between Dec. 17, 1903 and Aug. 8, 1908, look like unreliable articles one can find in tabloids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.114.138 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet please do not use abusively your editorial powers

Let me write comments and do not hide them just because you want to hide the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.80 (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Honours

Should there not be a section listing the various honours awarded to the brothers, including being chevaliers de la Legion d'Honneur, which is not mentioned in the article.TheLongTone (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. Do not forget to add to the list the honor to witness a flight of Henri Farman, "NOVEMBER 18, 1907. Orville, with Berg and the English writer Walter Savage Landor, witnesses French flyer Henri Farman compete for a Deutsch-Archdeacon prize of 50,000 francs at Issy-les-Moulineaux, near Paris.". Orville Wright saw a powered flight in France more than 8 months before Aug. 8, 1908 when the two brothers started to fly in front of credible witnesses. This is the plane Orville saw flying on NOVEMBER 18, 1907 (see http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Doers_and_Dreamers/Doers_and_Dreamers_images/Voison/1907_Voison_Farman_replica.jpg ) which is quite similar with the planes the Wright brothers started to fly in August 1908. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.80 (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

O for the love of Mike. While Wilbur was witnessing Farman attempting to turn his highly unwieldy machine the Flyer that he was to fly at Le Mans was already in France. The Wright flights in 1903 were witnessed by reliable witnesses, there were many others for their later flights. A French reporter investigated the claims at the end of 1906 and was convinced. And so on and on and on. Get real.TheLongTone (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you read what that french reporter wrote and what was the opinion of WB about his articles? Take a look at this, "DECEMBER 12, 1905. Robert Coquelle, writer for L’Auto, comes to Dayton to verify Wright claims of powered flight and requests pictures and details of their machine. He is accompanied to Wright home by John F. Johnson, Dayton bicyclist. The Wrights did not provide him with this information, but Coquelle published a series of articles about them in L’Auto, December 23–26 issues, which the Wrights denounced as false and inaccurate.", "DECEMBER 30, 1905. Wrights sign optional contract with Arnold Fordyce, agreeing to deliver to him their first flying machine for 1,000,000 francs, or $200,000, for the use of the French Army not later than August 1, 1906. The Wrights were to give a demonstration flight in France within three months to show that the plane could travel 50 kilometers in an hour." (Source, http://history.nasa.gov/monograph32.pdf ). There was no plane delivered in Aug. 1906. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.80 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

TheLongTone - I completely agree. This is justified by the Wright's status and historical significance of their endeavor - despite the continued nonsensical blather from the IP troll... Ckruschke (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

A nice idea, though I don't think the list would be very long for honors received while both were living. In the U.S. the Langley Medal from the Smithsonian (ironically) is prominent (1910, the first awarded, I think). I read somewhere that more things have been honored with Langley's name than the Wrights (Navy ships, places, government research centers). Orville received a number of honorary degrees in his later years (he was referred to as Dr. Wright in various communications). In early decades of the 20th century, an airfield in the Dayton area was called Wilbur Wright Field (the name lives on in Wright-Patterson Air Force Base). Of course, the National Memorial at Kill Devil Hills. There are busts of them at NYU's Hall of Fame in New York City. There is something called the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award and an official U.S. observance (not a holiday) called Wright Brothers Day (Dec 17). DonFB (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

Jason.lipiec (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

core.libraries.wright.edu no longer exists and has been replaces with a new system at corescholar.libraries.wright.edu

Under Image collection The URL pointing to Wright Brothers Collection digital images at Wright State University needs to be changed to http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/special_ms1/

Under External Links The URL pointing to photo of Adam Etheridge and John T. Daniels(April 16, 1938; Wilbur's 71st birthday), both who were present at Kitty Hawk on December 17, 1903 needs to be changed to http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/special_ms1_photographs/1501/

The URL pointing to Wilbur and Charlie Taylor watch Orville in flight during the 1909 Fort Myer trials needs to be changed to http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/special_ms1_photographs/849/

 Done. Thanks for your note. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

The URL, http://www.libraries.wright.edu/special/symposium/Johnson.html, for citation 2. Johnson, Mary Ann. Following the Footsteps of the Wright Brothers: Their Sites and Stories Symposium Papers Wright State University, 2001. needs to be updated to http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/following/symposium/program/3/

Jason.lipiec (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for your note! Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wright Brothers

Has anybody else noticed a mistake as to when there first flight was? it says December 17 Its actually October! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.73.66 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where you are getting October, but this is not correct. Ckruschke (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

You don't know what you're talking about. You may be referring to their long flights of October 1905, two years after their 1903 flights, but I wonder. Koplimek (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Tense

I noticed the lead says "...two American brothers, inventors, and aviation pioneers who were credited[1][2][3] with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane...." Is there a reason why this is not "are"? Whatever was written in last year's Jane's, I don't think the general consensus among aviation historians has changed.TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. The brothers ARE credited. The Jane's editorial has not carried any subsequent weight. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That was all over a year ago, wonder what the present edition says.TheLongTone (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The creator of the "Blade Element Theory" is Stefan Drzewiecki and not the Wright Brothers.

Tom Crouch, a pro Wright brother historian, claims the two US inventors realized that a propeller was in fact a rotating wing and that they discovered a method to design propellers (see 1).

(1) "The design of effective propellers presented a far greater challenge. The Wrights, who had initially hoped to learn from experience with ship propellers, discovered that little thought had been given to basic theory in this area. In another of their brilliant flashes of insight, the brothers reasoned that a propeller could be regarded as a rotary wing in which the lift being generated becomes the thrust that moves the aircraft forward. Knowing the number of revolutions per minute at which the propeller would be turning, they calculated the speed at which the blade would be moving at any point along its length and selected an appropriate airfoil from the tables developed during their wind tunnel tests. It sounds simple enough, but as Orville explained, "on further consideration it is hard to find even a point from which to make a start, for nothing about a propeller, or the medium in which it acts, stands still for a moment."", Tom Crouch, "First Flight: The Wright Brothers and the Invention of the Airplane", pag. 57, 2002, https://archive.org/stream/firstflightwrigh00crou#page/56/mode/2up

However, the letter of Wilbur Wright to Octave Chanute (see 2) shows the two brothers had already been informed about the theory of Stefan Drzewiecki, before their alleged powered flight in Dec. 1903.

(2) Letter of Wilbur Wright to Octave Chanute Dayton, July 2, 1903,

"My delay in writing you was chiefly due to a desire to first obtain a clear understanding of the Drzewiecki article on screws. [2] This author's methods of thought and expression are so different from my own that it has been no easy matter to master his paper. It shows a very clear understanding of some features of the question, but as the author seems unacquainted with negative tangential, and with the effect which weight of water acted upon by each part of the screw has in fixing the angle of incidence, the paper leaves much to be desired as a complete discussion of the subject. I am quite certain that his method of constructing a screw of uniform angle of incidence will not give the result intended. The speed imparted to the water by suction before the screw actually has a chance to strike it is also ignored; and no method of calculating the loss from this source is given. Some of his conclusions seem to Orville and me to be rank heresy, but of course we are like the theologians and judge the "soundness" or "unsoundness" of others by the closeness of their agreement with ourselves.", Source: http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/Chanute_Wright_correspond/1903/Jul2-1903.html

(3) "[2] Stefan Drzewiecki, born in 1844, was the originator of the blade element theory of screws, which considers the blades of a screw as being composed of an infinite number of aerofoil sections. The blade element theory, together with the momentum theory of Froude and Rankine, is almost universally used today to explain the action of aerial screws. In 1900, Drzewiecki presented a paper, "Des Helices propulsives," to the Congres d'Architecture et de Constructions Navales in Paris. In 1901, a second paper by him, "Du Choix des elements determinant les helices propulsives permettant leur facile comparaison entre elles," was published in the Bulletin de l'Association Technique Maritime (no. 12, 1901). The papers were reprinted in Paris in 1900 and 1901 respectively. It is not known which of the two Chanute sent to the Wrights.", Source: http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/Chanute_Wright_correspond/1903/Jul2-1903.html

These two brothers were ignorant people, they made fun of Drzewiecki in front of Chanute, and finally, in 1908 when they flew in France and US in front of witnesses, started to claim the theory of this Polish scientist as their own. Historians, like Tom Crouch, who do not have any technical background, simply believed the two brothers and propagated this false information around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.80 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of duplicate links

A reader was unhappy that a particular person's name was not linked. After I added the link, they pointed out that the name occurred three times, and was not linked each time. I will point out our guieline on the subject, but it appears that several names have been linked multiple times, so I am going to remove the multiple links. Here is a list, in case a discussion is needed:

• Chanute 3
• Langley
• wind tunnel
• camber
• Wright Flyer
• Charlie Taylor
• Flyer II
• Dayton
• Flyer III 2

• Huffman Prairie 3
• Langley Aerodrome
• Aeronautical Division, U.S. Signal Corps
• Henry Toulmin
• adverse yaw
• Glenn Curtiss 2
• Wright Type A
• pusher
• NACA

• John T. Daniels
• Ader
• Whitehead
• Santos-Dumont
• Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith
• North Carolina
• Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park
• Ohio
• Wright Brothers National Memorial

I also noticed that the usual practice of using the full name in the first instance, and last name in subsequent usages was not being followed. I fixed some, not necessarily all.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The brothers never married

It says, "Wilbur was born near Millville, Indiana, in 1867; Orville in Dayton, Ohio, in 1871. The brothers never married." Why is it necessary to say that they were never married? Wasn't that illegal back then anyway? Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

In biographical articles it is normal practice to present the detailed family life as one coherent and grouped set of information, that's why it is sometimes necessary to add some precision like "per absentia" if that information could be expected by the reader, so possibly perceived by him/her as otherwise missing or omitted. Regarding your second point, it does not seem that mention of marriages in biographies could be not legal. --Askedonty (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is a miscommunication. Nicki, did you interpret that as saying they were never married to each other? That isn't the intent. Neither of the brothers were ever married to anyone.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2014

The Wright/Taylor engine had a primitive version of modern fuel-injection systems, having no carburetor or fuel pump. Gasoline was gravity-fed from the fuel tank mounted on a wing strut into a chamber next to the cylinders where it was mixed with air: the fuel-air mixture was then vaporized by heat from the crankcase, forcing it into the cylinders.[59]

Please change the above to: The Wright/Taylor engine had a primitive version of a carburetor, and had no fuel pump. Gasoline was gravity-fed from the fuel tank mounted on a wing strut into a chamber next to the cylinders where it was mixed with air: the fuel-air mixture was then vaporized by heat from the crankcase, forcing it into the cylinders.[59]

My reasoning and sources: A fuel injection system has to have some sort of a fuel injector. Fuel flowing by gravity into a chamber inside the intake tract in no way resembles a fuel injection system. I would describe the 1903 fuel system as a crude carburetor.

[3] Please read chapter 7 in the above web page.

[4] On this NASA page there is an excellent graphic that shows the Wright Brothers 1903 fuel system.

Thanks, Andy Brothers. Kitty Hawk, NC. Retired Commercial pilot, American Airlines. I live about 7 miles from the site of the First Flight.

Glasspilot (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam ^Sing! 13:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Whitehead first to fly

The Wright Brothers were not the first to fly. It has been finally recognized that Gustav Whitehead was the first to fly on August 14, 1901 when he flew a half mile 40ft in the air. [5] JustDafactz (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Claims that Whitehead was the first to engage in motorized flight, while still the subject of controversy, are not supported by mainstream sources. The article on Whitehead here explains this, as does Early flying machines. See also WP:FRINGE. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Its not claims when it is documented. Stop acting as if it is fabricated that Gustav Whitehead flew in 1901. Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft, the bible of aviation, just recently acknowledged Gustav Whitehead was the first to fly. The Smithsonian institution has a contract with the Wright brothers, has a contract that forbids them from saying anyone flew before the Wright brothers. Thus they will never breach that contract unless they alter or nullify that contract. History will soon be rewritten and the true pioneer of flight will receive his well deserved acknowledgement. The Wright Brothers are still enormously important to aviation they just weren't the first to fly.JustDafactz (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"The Smithsonian institution has a contract with the Wright brothers, has a contract that forbids them from saying anyone flew before the Wright brothers. Thus they will never breach that contract unless they alter or nullify that contract." So says Ken Kusterer of Bridgeport, Connecticut at the local TV station link you provided. Is there some reason we should accept Mr. Kusterer's opinion on this subject as a documented fact or even an expert opinion, and the WTNH-TV Channel 8 link you provided as authoritative evidence as to who was the first to engage in motorized flight? The Smithsonian agreement with the Wrights is already documented in this article, as are the competing claims of Whitehead and others discussed here and elsewhere. What changes are you proposing or asking be made and what evidence (other than the WTNH article) do you have to support them? Dwpaul ^Talk 02:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, when "history is rewritten" (by means of a consensus of a significant number of expert sources) we will respond by revising it here. We are not in the habit of "rewriting history" here, as that is not the function of an encyclopedia. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying these sources who are incorrect but you are taken the word of the Smithsonian, who have a monetary investment and have built part of their reputation on the Wright Brothers, as gospel? If NPR isn't enough of a national voice maybe this FoxNews article will fit your needs . Once again Jane's the WORLD WIDE LEADER in everything Aviation has acknowledged Whitehead as the first to fly. They have no connection to America or the Wright Brothers meanwhile you are taking the word of the Smithsonian who have invested millions and signed a contract, that has been repeated by other media outlets, that forbids them from saying anyone other the Wright Brothers flew first. They have minted commemorative coins, state coins, built a museum for the Wright Brothers. You really think they are going to come out and say "We were wrong the Wright Brothers were not first"? Of coarse they wont they have to save face and stick to their guns they have spent too much money filtering a misconception to the masses and will not backtrack. Germany is building a museum for Whitehead to recognize his feat as first to fly. The rest of the world and Aviation experts will acknowledge it but since the almighty Smithsonian, US based and connected to US History, will not budge you think it is all a farce.JustDafactz (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Jane's publication in support of Whitehead was the work of the editor acting alone. In any case, the expertise of Jane's is in modern aircraft, not historic. The Smithsonian's expertise is in the history of aviation. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And Gibbs Smith also gives no credence to whitehead's claims. This brilliant man, who I believe was the first man to realize that air can be compressed for energy storage with near 100% efficiency if a heat sink is used to store the heat generated by compression, is worth listening to. Ion G Nemes (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2015

First person who invented Air-Plane is "Shivkar Bapuji Talpade".

Wright Brothers are not the first person to invent Air-plane.

below is the link from wiki:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivkar_Bapuji_Talpade

Kvarunkr (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Yes, Wright Brothers are not first to invent airplane. They are first to invent -world's first "successful" airplane. (please read the very first paragraph). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2014

The truth about Motorized flight

the incorrect timeline of flight for they have put that the Wright brothers were the but it was Gustave Whitehead Thetruththatisreal (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You have not specified the change you propose should be made in the form "Please change x to y" as explained above. However, claims that Whitehead was the first to engage in motorized flight, while still the subject of controversy, are not supported by mainstream sources. The article on Whitehead here explains this, as does Early flying machines. See also WP:FRINGE. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are many claims that Gustave Whitehead was in fact the first to fly, however until these claims are confirmed and widely accepted I do not think that anyone should make this request. Thank you. --RedstoneHUD (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Wrights' flyer was the first machine to take off and fly under it's own power. That is what matters. Attempts launch steam-powered kites off cliffs, and the like, were just gimmicks. 2. I vaguely remember reading in some notes by Orville that he acknowledged that the wing warping was devised by Lawrence Hargrave, who did not patent any of his ideas. He also developed the curved aerofoil with a thicker leading edge. The Flyer had a strong resemblance to Hargrave's later box kites.220.240.251.52 (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request on 2/25/2015

There's an incorrect link down here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#cite_note-18 links to: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Wright_Bros/wright_family/WR1.htm

but that should be a .net, not .gov. The correct URL is http://www.centennialofflight.net/essay/Wright_Bros/wright_family/WR1.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chug2k (talk • contribs) 08:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Done.TheLongTone (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Worlds first flight was by Lawrence Hargrave 1894

This article is grossly inaccurate. 1894: powered flight The following claim at [14] is an out right lie.

.[14] From 1900 until their first powered flights in late 1903, they conducted extensive glider tests that also developed their skills as pilots.

Neither The Wright Brothers, Nor Gustav Whitehead were the first to fly on August 14, 1901 This article makes a whole bunch of assumptions based on innuendo & hearsay & double hearsay. (but then what else is new. Wikipeadia has always been a site of lies propaganda & thievery of other peoples & other nations work, inventions & history. Truth & fact is something Wikipedia fails to grasp.

The whole bloody world knows that Australian Lawrence Hargrave conducted the worlds first flight & the worlds first Powered flight. in 1894. Some 7-9 years earlier than both Gustav Whitehead & The Wright Brothers.

Lawrence Hargrave even took a photo of his flight & his invention of 1894. as seen in the newspapers of the day.

After discovering that curved surfaces are more aerodynamic than flat ones, Lawrence Hargrave invented the box kite, the cellular construction of which was more stable than the previous monoplanes. On 12 November 1894, he strapped four box kites together with a compressed air engine, which was also his own invention, tethered it to the ground with piano wire and managed to fly the short five metres that changed aviation history.

http://www.cnet.com/au/pictures/best-aussie-inventions-of-all-time/4/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.23.170 (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure the Australians have many picturesque and robust phrases to describe the above.TheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What is written above in bald letters is likely to be true, but 5 metres is still shorter than 50 and 1894 is still later than 1890. Aviation historians make difference between first powered take-off and first controlled powered flight (though criteria used to judge one from another seems to be a bit vague sometimes). Эйхер (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith felt that the Hargrove experiment was not a true flight as it did not fly far enough and was not fully controllable by the pilot; it was unable to perform sustained flight. Also, the engine was too weak. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be more accurate,and less confusing, to describe the flat plate used in conjunction with airfoil testing, as counterbalancing, instead of counteracting, the test airfoil (having no airfoil itself, the flat plate would not "counteract" the airfoil.) Punter75 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Lift Equation "L = k x S x V^2 x CL" is wrong

The wiki page of the Wright brothers states that: L = k x S x V^2 x CL, no citation is given. This expression can not be true as long as the modern equation of lift is L = 0.5 x ro x S x V^2 x CL (ro = the air density = 1.2 kg/m^3) which means that k = 0.5 x ro = 0.6 kg/m^3 = 0.0025 lbf/ft^2/mph^2 and not 0.00327 (~0.0033) as it should be.74.56.1.38 (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Lilienthal's best glider superior to the 1902 Wright glider

The entire paragraph regarding the 1902 Wright glider should be reworded. This flying machine was not superior to the ones build by Lilienthal or Octave Chanute.

A) From the sources below it results that Lilienthal's most advanced glider was far superior to that built by the Wright brothers in 1902 as the German apparatus was able to fly 1148 ft while the machine made by the Wrights only 600 ft.

It seems like the wind tunnel tests done by the Wright brothers in 1901-1902 to find optimal wings did not lead to improvements in lowering the glide angle and so increasing the flight distance (see 1 and 2).

1)"Finally Lilienthal become so skilled that he could make his glides in air velocities of 33 feet per second ... Lilienthal carried out more than 1,000 glides and attained distances of 1,148 ft. at a gliding angle of 4 degree from the hill.", Source: John H. D. Blanke, "Pioneers in Gliding", Popular Aviation, pag. 74 - 77, May 1928 (see: https://books.google.ca/books?id=Z8PaTOr-jxYC&lpg=PA75&ots=9EEqCSsosJ&dq=lilienthal%20glide%20angle&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q&f=false)

2) "World Record Holders The improved performance of the 1902 glider finally enabled the Wright brothers to gain extensive practice in the air. During September and October, they made between 700 and 1,000 glides. Flights of 500 feet were common, and a few topped 600 feet. Orville enthusiastically wrote home of their success, “we now hold all records!”", Source: Inventing a Flying Machine, (see: http://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/wright-brothers/online/fly/1902/worldrecord.cfm)

B) "An important discovery was the benefit of longer narrower wings: in aeronautical terms, wings with a larger aspect ratio (wingspan divided by chord—the wing's front-to-back dimension). Such shapes offered much better lift-to-drag ratio than the broader wings the brothers had tried so far." (source Wikipedia)

As you can see the 1902 Chanute and Wright gliders had similar aspect ratios:

Chanute glider, 1902: wing - 1.07 m x 6.09 m (see: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65534693/f187.item.r=wright.zoom)

Wright glider, 1902: wing - 1.52 m x 9.75 m (see: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65534693/f191.item.r=wright.zoom)

The Wright brothers made no important discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wright Brothres key discovery was the necessity of combined use of rudder and lateral control. Ask yourself why Lillienthal died.TheLongTone (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Lilienthal used hang gliders which were more controllable in roll, pitch and yaw than the 1902 Wright glider. Lilienthal died because his glider stalled. The combined rudder and lateral control of the Wright brothers would not have saved Lilienthal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. It stalled because pitch control was inadequate. I think that you must have a very singular idea of what controllability means.TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The horizontal front rudder of the Wright brothers would not have helped Lilienthal because that small wing also stalls. In fact, the majority of pilots that flew Wright planes in US died in crashes after their airplanes stalled. The front rudder was unable to save them.74.56.1.38 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, you have no reference to support your position. Go read a book and report back. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There are no references saying that a glider was superior to the Wrights' powered aircraft. Only a powered aircraft can provide sustainable and practical flight.

Wright Brothers might not be the first to fly

There have been documented evidence that a Bill Frost of Wales took to the skies first, because the Wright Brothers page has been locked, I cannot add anything about this event, here are some sources on the story

Bill Frost - the first man to fly? welsh-wizard-prang ten welsh inventions wales gave great-welsh-inventors http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=GB&NR=189420431&KC=&FT=E Special:BookSources/9781845240844 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See Frost Airship Glider. DonFB (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See also Early flying machines. This article is only locked for anonymous edits (people who are not confirmed Wikipedians). Create an account and show that you know how to edit an article (which it appears you can do), and you should be good. Regarding Frost's claim (which are without photos or official representation), are we sure it's a heavier-than-air craft? The patent says it has "sufficient gas to lift the craft", making it more of a powered dirigible. Nerfer (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Article is very long

I found this readable, and very informative and interesting, but it is much longer than a typical Wikipedia page. At a bit over 120KB in length it is above the 100KB upper limit Wikipedia recommends, although that is for prose, and the 120KB number is for everything. I am not going to change anything, but we may want to think about splitting it up (one article on the brothers, another on their R&D, flight details, etc.). Nerfer (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's rather long. For starters, the 'Ohio–North Carolina rivalry' section could be eliminated entirely; that info is not part of WB biography. The 'European skepticism' section might also be deleted; its content is briefly mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 'Public showing' section. I'm not sure which sections, if any, could or should be split out, but chunks of some sections, like the Orville block quote in 'First powered flight' could be deleted. DonFB (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing the personal biography info split off into separate articles for each brother, as they were 2 different people. The remaing article here could focus their development of flight. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That suggestion has been made before and did not get much traction. I don't really think enough unique information exists about each brother to justify separate articles. I think readers expect an article about them as a 'unit,' and would find it a little clumsy to be required to look at two articles. One possibility, though, would be to split off the 'Orville' subsection from the 'Last Years' section into an article by itself. DonFB (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus can and does change, but the only way to know that is to propose it. Guessing at what readers want is just that - a guess; there's no real way to know whether either option is favored, so that's not a good argument nto make. As far as I can tell, it's been years since it's been discussed, and thus it's probably time to do that as part of a broader discussion of article length. - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just giving my opinion in the quest for consensus. Most of the article now is about their joint development of flight and their previous joint work in printing, newspapering and bicycle-making and sales, the careers in which they spent virtually their entire working lives together. Distinguishing events in their youth that can be mentioned are: for Orville, his launch of the print shop; for Wilbur, his athletic accident and funk, his membership in the Ten Dayton Boys club and his pamphleteering in support of his father's battles in the Brethren church. Beyond that, I have not seen anything in the sources that provides substantive details on them as individuals. Again, though, Orville's later life might be made into a separate article. DonFB (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Another thought: The 'Gliders' section has a link to 'Wright Glider,' but the Gliders section is still very large; some of its material could be taken out and added to the separate Wright Glider article. Similarly, the 'Patent War' section has a link to a separate 'Wright brothers patent war' article, but the section is still very large; material could be transferred to the independent article. DonFB (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe this article won an award somewhere back in 2007 or 2008. It is not the same article that won the award. I think the article is fine as is. Another poster claimed it is too long. I don't think so, considering the importance of the subject. There are articles on pop-celebrity individuals that are far too long but I don't make changes ie Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, Charles Manson. The Orville section after Wilbur's death describes his life alone. True Wikipedia is not a book, but many an article don't practice the brevity seemingly sought by saying the Wrights article is too long. Kind of gives me the impression anti-Wright people are still at work trying to discredit the brothers. Go and whittle down Marilyn Monroe or Elvis and see what the response is.Koplimek (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Physical impossibility: "We find that the greatest speed over the ground is attained in the flights against the stronger breezes.", Wilbur Wright, August 28, 1904

It is known that ground speed = airspeed - headwind speed (Vg=Va-Vw) where the airspeed is constant, and independent of the headwind speed, as long as the engine delivers a constant power. In conclusion if the headwind speed grows the ground-speed decreases. It does not get higher.

In 1904, the Wright Brothers started to test a new plane, Flyer II, somewhere near Dayton, Ohio where they managed to get permission to use a flat pasture for their experiments. The winds were light there and, in the beginning, they had no catapult to quickly accelerate their machine and throw it into the air. They simply started the engine of the airplane which began to move along a track (a runway) while a headwind of moderate intensity was blowing and finally they got into the air and flew slower if the headwind speed was lower and faster if the headwind was stronger (see letters 1 and 2) which is a known physical impossibility. Only one conclusion can be drawn, the two letters describe imaginary flights and Wilbur Wright was simply bluffing with the intention to convince Octave Chanute and others that he had really flown.

Letter 1: Fragment from a letter addressed by Wilbur Wright to Octave Chanute, on August 8, 1904: "One of the Saturday flights reached 600 ft. ... We have found great difficulty in getting sufficient initial velocity to get real starts. While the new machine lifts at a speed of about 23 miles, it is only after the speed reaches 27 or 28 miles that the resistance falls below the thrust. We have found it practically impossible to reach a higher speed than about 24 miles on a track of available length, and as the winds are mostly very light, and full of lulls in which the speed falls to almost nothing, we often find the relative velocity below the limit and are unable to proceed. ... It is evident that we will have to build a starting device that will render us independent of wind." Source: Page 52 of Octave Chanute Papers: Special Correspondence--Wright Brothers, 1904 | Library of Congress

Letter 2: Fragment from the letter written by Wilbur Wright to Octave Chanute on August 28, 1904: "Dayton, Ohio, August 28, 1904. Dear Mr Chanute ... ... Since the first of August we have made twenty five starts with the #2 Flyer. The longest flights were 1432 ft., 1304 ft, 1296, ft. and 1260 ft. These are about as long as we can readily make on over present grounds without circling. We find that the greatest speed over the ground is attained in the flights against the stronger breezes. We find that our speed at startup is about 29 or 30 ft per second, the last 60 ft of track being covered in from 2 to 2 1/4 seconds. The acceleration toward the end being very little. When the wind averages much below 10 ft per second it is very difficult to maintain flight, because the variations of the wind are such as to reduce the relative speed so low at times that the resistance becomes greater than the thrust of the screws. Under such circumstances the best of management will not insure a long flight, and at the best the speed accelerates very slowly. In one flight of 39 1/4 seconds the average speed over the ground was only 33 ft per second, a velocity only about 3 ft per second greater than that at startup. The wind averaged 12 ft per second. In a flight against a wind averaging 17 ft per second, the average speed over the ground was 42 ft per second, an average relative velocity of 59 ft per second and an indicated maximum velocity of 70 ft per second. We think the machine when in full flight will maintain an average relative speed of at least 45 miles an hour. This is rather more than we care for at present. Our starting apparatus is approaching completion and then we will be ready to start in calms and practice circling. Yours truly Wilbur Wright." Source: Page 55 of Octave Chanute Papers: Special Correspondence--Wright Brothers, 1904 | Library of Congress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of a violation of WP:No original research. With no sources discussing this aspect, we should not put anything about it in the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"The velocity of the plane with respect to the ground is equal to the velocity of the plane with respect to the air plus the velocity of the air with respect to the ground." Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/airpw.html . This definition says that the greatest speed over the ground is attained in the flights against the lighter breezes and not stronger as W. Wright claimed.74.56.1.38 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, your reference says nothing about the Wright brothers. You are indulging in original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you get yourself published in a magazine or something then maybe. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The possibility to be accelerated by a headwind was discussed in August 2015 (see: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/19478/the-stronger-the-headwind-the-faster-the-plane-flies-if-it-is-in-the-reverse-com ) and the conclusion was that a headwind slows down the plane. The airspeed of a plane is a constant that does not depend of the wind speed. The plane is simply transported backward by the headwind like a boat, going upstream, by the water.74.56.1.38 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What Wilbur Wright wrote in that August 28, 1904 letter to O. Chanute, (see the text above) disqualifies him. No plane can be accelerated by a headwind, on the contrary the airplane is slowed down. This is basic physics. I do not understand why Wikipedia does not accept as a reliable reference the August 28, 1904 letter of W. Wright. 74.56.1.38 (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

An editor's personal opinion about the meaning of a primary source (quotation from a letter, for example) may not be used as a basis for stating a conclusion or judgment in a Wikipedia article about a person who is the subject of the article. Only opinions stated in reliable published sources may be included in an article. One hundred years of published material about achievements of the Wrights do not agree with your personal theories about them. DonFB (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Stick a fork in it: this discussion is done. Binksternet (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The well documented site The Wright brothers' claim. The chronology of a fraud. (bottom of the page) confirms that a plane can not be accelerated by a headwind. The entire Wikipedia page about the Wright Brothers is a huge mystification of the reality. The two from Dayton published no picture or technical drawing of their alleged 1903 - 1905 planes and showed nothing till 1908. Aviation appeared in 1906 without the help of the two brothers. When somebody proves that the 1902 glider the Wright brothers advertised a lot, starting with 1902, made aviation possible then the two inventors might be considered important. However, the evidence that exists shows the Wright brothers were just late aviation pioneers of the 1908. Before that year their contribution to motorized flight is zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. Also, you are are reading too much into something written by the Wrights rather than focusing on what they actually did. Their own faulty explanation does not undermine their phenomenal achievement. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

“The airspeed of a plane is a constant that does not depend of the wind speed.“ That's actually not true. It assumes that the geometry, and hence the lift and drag, of the plane stays constant. The Wrights observed that for their particular flights, at lower average wind speeds, the variability of wind was higher. “the best of management will not insure a long flight”. "difficult management" means large changes in the control surfaces, such as the canard in front of the plane. If they had to constantly move the canard up and down for highly variable, low average wind speed flights, that could certainly slow a plane down and account for slower ground speeds despite lower head winds.--Nowa (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

An airplane flying against the wind is like a boat going upstream. There is absolutely no way for the plane or the boat to gain ground speed from the flow of fluid. No matter what the pilot does, the plane or the boat is slowed down. Regarding the phrase When the wind averages much below 10 ft per second it is very difficult to maintain flight, because the variations of the wind are such as to reduce the relative speed so low at times that the resistance becomes greater than the thrust of the screws. Under such circumstances the best of management will not insure a long flight, this is total nonsense. W. Wright wrongly believed the drag increased with a decrease of the average headwind speed. He was convinced that stronger headwinds helped the plane to gain ground speed and the calm weather was the worst enemy of his plane. W. Wright had in mind an anchored kite when he composed the two letters about imaginary motorized flights "done" in 1904. In the case of a kite the higher the wind speed the higher the lift, the heavier the kite and the better it can fly. However, the kite is in a completely different case. There the thrust, the tension in the cord, automatically increases as the wind picks up and the drag increases. In the situation of a kite the airspeed is the headwind speed while in the case of a plane the average airspeed is constant and depends only of the engine power, being independent of the average wind speed. As a general conclusion, the most favorable situation for a plane in flight is headwind speed = 0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The Wright brothers wrote in a notebook they had used french propellers and a french engine (Bariquand) in Feb. 1909

This is not what the books about the Wright brothers teach us.

PAU | Feb. 8, 1909 | Bariquand 108 x 100 | 33 x 10 Sprocket. | 1907-8 French Screws. | Outdoor No Wind | 1 min 390 turns.,

Source: Diaries and Notebooks: 1908-1912, Orville and Wilbur Wright, pag. 18.

We all know, at least this is the claim, the screws of the Wright brothers were at least 66% efficient and far beyond the propellers of the time. It did not make sense to utilize inferior propellers when the two brothers already had much more performant screws. Viable explanations needed.74.56.1.38 (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Here, you claim preserved Wright logs provide evidence for some point you're trying to make, while elsewhere you claim their logs are fraudulent. I could say, "viable explanation needed" for such self-contradictory use of sources, but I won't because: a) editors may not contribute personal interpretations of primary sources, and b) your purpose here is not to improve this article. DonFB (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Just add this information "PAU | Feb. 8, 1909 | Bariquand 108 x 100 | 33 x 10 Sprocket. | 1907-8 French Screws. | Outdoor No Wind | 1 min 390 turns." to the Wiki page of the Wright brothers without any interpretation. This will not break any rule be it real or imaginary. It is not quite clear for me why you do not want to add the above mentioned log, because it is fraudulent or because it tells the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but I see no improvement to this article by lengthening it with a minor random fact from a primary source, so I won't be adding it, but I'm curious: does your desire to include this factoid mean that you accept as legitimate and honest all logs, letters and diaries written by the Wright brothers and displayed by the U.S. Library of Congress? DonFB (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page of the Wright brothers is locked and only a few editors can modify it. It is a big lie that anyone can edit the page. No, I do not believe that all logs of the Wright brothers reflect the reality as long as many of them come in conflict with the declarations of witnesses, with physics or with things the Wright brothers had previously written. The Feb. 8, 1909 is not a minor factoid but a major discrepancy that blows the credibility of the two inventors from Dayton. The log proves the brothers either wrote a lie for unexplained reasons or they really used 1907 - 1908 french propellers which according to the same brothers were inferior to the 1903 screws made by them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia does not permit personal opinions of editors to be included in articles. DonFB (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Feb 8, 1909 log is not a persona opinionl! An example of abusive personal opinion added by you without any reference is this: Although not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft, the Wright brothers were the first to invent aircraft controls that made fixed-wing powered flight possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.92.230.201 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

What is your objection to the text? And don't use 'abusive' to describe content you disagree with. DonFB (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Who cares? What's the point? The Wrights flew in 1903, so it doesn't matter very much that they used a French propeller or a French engine in 1909. Jeez, you're flying around Paris so much, making so many demonstrations of flight that you wear out your American propeller and your home-built engine, so now you must buy some replacements locally. Not a big deal. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Denial article

Is Wright Brothers Denial noteworthy enough to be worth an article?? There are certainly enough of these enthusiasts about, generally cherry-picking their facts & relying on flaky interpretations of photographs. At least it would keep this nonsense of this talk page. IMO.TheLongTone (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources would be needed, of course. A would-be editor's homebrew theory, as seen here on the Talk page, can not be used, because it is original research or synthesis, both prohibited. Sufficient sources exist for an article on the first-to-fly controversy but seem rather scarce for an article on outright denial. I have a feeling this article/talk page will always be a magnet for denial claims, even if a separate article is created. DonFB (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Early flying machines covers most of the "first-to-fly" controversies sufficiently that we probably don't need a dedicated article on Wright denials. - BilCat (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's not create a POV fork to give a platform to the nonsense. I'd rather see the strongest arguments dealt with here or at Early flying machines. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it was really just a frivolous suggestion. Really I think that responding to these people is a waste of time, since if they were susceptible to logical argument they would not perpetrate such guff.TheLongTone (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908, Alpheus W. Drinkwater, telegraph operator

"Wilbur and Orville Wright are credited with making their first powered flight in a heavier-than-air machine on Dec. 17, 1903. But Alpheus W. Drinkwater, 76 years old, who sent the telegraph message ushering in the air age, said the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908, he said." Source: New York Times, Dec. 17, 1951.

The declaration of Alpheus W. Drinkwater corroborates well with the article "The Wright brothers in US and in France - The last tests of the Wrights' in US described by themselves", L'Aérophile, June 1908, pag. 222-223" ( http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f232.image.r=wright%206%20mai.langEN ) where the two brothers talked, amongst others things, about a 337 m flight, against a 4-6 m/s headwind, that took place on May 6, 1908. As a remark, this is the first claimed powered flight mentioned by the Wright brothers after they stopped flying (also a pure claim) in October 1905. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.60.102 (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Drinkwater's remark is well-known to aviation historians who don't agree with your personal opinion about its significance. Your other comments also reflect your personal opinions, not the conclusions of reliable sources, who have been describing Wright achievements for more than 100 years. This and all articles are based only on the findings and opinions of reliable sources. Your repeated efforts to rewrite well-accepted history here based on your personal conclusions about the content of primary sources shows a deliberate disregard for this website's rules. You have free rein at your own website. DonFB (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, is there a way to block all Montreal-area IPs from posting here. Such persistent nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The user made another such post, which I've removed as talk pages are not forums. If these sorts of posts continue, I will ask an admin to semi-protect the talk page. I recommend that no one else respond to the user, and just remove the posts. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

BilCat, please stop bullying me with abusive warnings. Please stop deleting my posts on the talk page. I have broken no Wikipedia rule. I always quote primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, yakkety yak...DONT TALK BACKTheLongTone (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Misinterpretation: "the drift became a negative quantity", W. Wright, November 16, 1900

In order to improve the page of the Wright brothers and bring it closer to what the two inventors from Dayton really did, not to what they claimed they had done, I propose the attached text be added somewhere in the WB's wiki page because the paragraph shows how out of touch with the aeronautics of the time W. Wright was.

We spent quite a large portion of our time in testing the lift and drift of the machine in winds of different velocities, and with various loads. I will not go into this matter deeply just now but will say that in a wind blowing twenty miles per hour the drift of the machine when loaded to bring its weight up to fifty pounds was eight pounds. With the same wind blowing up a hill having a rise of one in twelve the drift was only three or four pounds and on a still steeper hill but with a lighter wind the drift became a negative quantity and the machine both rose and made its way against the wind till it lost its balance., Letter of W. Wright to O. Chanute, November 16, 1900, Source: http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/Chanute_Wright_correspond/1900/Nov16-1900.html

The drag (drift) never changed its sign as W. Wright, who did not understand basic physics, believed. He did not realize that the steeper the slope the higher the tangential weight of the kite. At a certain angle of the incline, the tangential weight got so great that it became equal to the drag and the kite started to behave like a glider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2016

Add links to Santos-Dumont wiki page where his name is cited. (Two out of three mentions are not with links to his bio page)

Rmredin (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: One link is usually all that is needed. Per WP:REPEATLINK, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." - BilCat (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Science

Having just read the McCullogh biography, I'm glad to see this article supplies the scientific information that the book lacks. But there's probably a WP article that really delves into the science of flight/aviation, and what the Wright Brothers (and others) were discovering after each trial. What is that article? Shouldn't it be on the See also list? - kosboot (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Rather no - the best path for satisfying such (specific) thirst of knowledge is often by following the relevant in-text links. There the See also lists will make more direct sense, if not maybe they'd need to be completed. Usefull also, you may occasionally check some of the listed categories. --Askedonty (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)