Talk:Wright brothers/Archive 1

message: "Generally credited in the US" does not imply "generally credited" full stop. From my reading of the related pages there's some real dispute among experts. Perhaps the best term should be "often credited". Ben Arnold 04:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going to be a long opening paragraph if you include every country that "generally credits" the Wright brothers with being the "first to fly".  In Australia I'm not aware of a popular dispute over their claim.  There are more appropriate places to promote Richard Pearse. Geoff/Gsl 06:02, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Generally credited

message: Seems reasonable to me to link to the most common claims. The argument that other articles do this already seems weak to me. We needn't dwell on it here, providing a short list seems like a sensible thing to do. I'm sure I read some principle that duplication by summary is seen as a good thing on Wikipedia. Surely that extends as far as a few links. Ben Arnold 04:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a link to all the earlier benchmarks and claims is enough. I try and rewrite the first to be more clear in any case.  Greyengine5 15:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to others who claim to be the first"

message: I decided to add a short section on the dispute between Ohio and North Carolina over claim to the Wrights' accomplishment. As a native of Dayton, this is a common topic of discussion (and often a source of heated opinions.) I kept a NPOV, of course. - Chardish 03:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohio/North Carolina dispute 

message: wow to my sup rise i found a heap of we are right because we say so arguments with a heap of large words thrown in to make me sound smart and correct.if the Wright brothers had of just Acknowledge everyone else we wouldnt have this problem. Basicly they put a engine in a plane and patent it.
:You're saying this article as a POV bias favoring the Wright brothers?  Perhaps.  Many articles on "X" are biased toward "X", since the people motivated to write or read significantly about "X" tend to be heavily "X" oriented.  People should expect this.  The only time we're likely to get any "X is no big deal" articles is from people who are biased against "X" because it conflicts with their bias for "Y".  That kind of bias is usually less acceptable.
:We have made a little progress towards comparing all the "first in flight" claims in one article; see Talk:First flying machine.  Perhaps you'd like to help with that.  --A D Monroe III 16:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias complaint by 210.50.244.152 

message: How can an supposed "aircraft", that needed to be catapulted to lift can be described and recognized as the first to fly? Sorry, but aircraft today are not catapulted, they move by themselves.
Of course, some can say that the Flyer was an very "early design" of aircraft, that doesn't had self-propulsion, as also didn't had jet propulsion or fly-by-wire technology.
Since the late 1890's gliders have flown all over the world. Wright Brothers cannot take this merit of been the first ones to glide. What they have really invented? They invented a propelled glider, that isn't, by any means, an aircraft.
So, the Wright Brothers were the first to fly an self-propelled glider, not aircraft.
The first flight of an aircraft was made in 1906 by Santos-Dumont. It's undisputable.
*But it is disputed; after all, an airplane, even the most advanced one, is technologically just a powered glider.  Please read NPOV.  The article that discusses these claims in depth is First flying machine.--Pharos 20:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Alberto Santos-Dumont achieved the first officially observed powered European flight. No argument there.  Nice rudder Alberto!  Catapult,  shamatapult.  Is a carrier launched jet, somehow less than an airplane? (research the Wrights rational for their extended use of the catapult) Yet to take nothing away from the good character of Santos-Dumont, his public generosity was fantastic! (while The Brothers were a bit more cagy.) TTLightningRod 21:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *The first complete circle was flown on September 20, 1904 by Wilbur Wright. References to this fact are found in Tom Crouch's "The Bishop's Boys" and Fred Howard's "Wilbur and Orville". It can also be directly seen in the U.S. Library of Congress website, which makes available online viewing of the Wright Brothers' own notepads of their flights during 1904-1905. The page of Wilbur's notepad in which he notes the circle flight, with the date, is quite legible. In the period 1903-1905 the Wrights always landed essentially at the same level from which they took off. The flights of December 17,1903 were made on the flat sands near the beach, not from Kill Devil Hill. The 1904-05 flights near Dayton were made at Huffman Prairie, a flat meadow with no hills. -- DFB 4.227.254.28 21:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wright Bros were not the first ones to FLY! 

message: An anon user, 201.19.95.177, has added the  tag to this article (or tried to).
Although there have been discussions of the wording of "generally credited", I don't know of any dispute that merits that tag.  Unless someone objects, I'll remove the tag.  --A D Monroe III 20:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed? 

message: It is all very interesting but I tend to agree with the comment that
Richard Pearce could very well have been the first to fly!
Als  a reccent replica of his flying machine did just that Flew !
you only have to look at the picture of a microlight flying over the monument to him at the Motac museum in NZ to see that he realy did have it right and some 9 months before the Wright bros
ref Wings over Waitohi - the story of Richard Pearse.  by C G Rodliffe
isbn:-  0-473-050000-5 —preceding unsigned comment by 86.141.23.228 (talk • contribs) 08:23, October 26, 2005
I never knew that the Wright brothers could be so controversial! --Jennie Ambrose 05:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its very well but!! 

message: The first public flight by the Wright brothers was 8 Aug 1908.   --84.189.142.208 19:13, 31. Jan. 2006 (UTC)
:That was not actually the first public flight, although it may have been the first organized demonstration. In 1904 and 1905, they flew on Huffman Prairie, next to a trolley car line, where many people saw them. The trolley car drivers used to stop so that people could watch. When the Wrights were later accused of secrecy, they produced a list of more than 60 people who had witnessed flights. They had signed affidavits from leading citizens of Dayton, the city auditor, a bank president and so on. (Kelly, Crouch) --JedRothwell 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Public Flight 

message: Does the part about the 14-bis belong in this article? It doesn't have any direct relevance to the Wright brothers, so I suggest that it should be merged into the first flying machine article. That article is where the controversy belongs, not this one. The first flying machine article is about a controversy, while this article is about two people and their accomplishments, not differing interpretations on what they did. Willy Logan 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with the above comments. In the not-too-distant future, I intend to remove (or drastically shrink) the 14-bis section, absent any persuasive cries of foul. 4.227.252.225 20:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea. Go for it! --JedRothwell 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. 4.227.254.146 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 14-bis revision by anon 

message: I'm rm a link to Leonardo da Vinci: Drawing on the work of Sir George Cayley, Octave Chanute, Otto Lilienthal, Leonardo da Vinci and Samuel Pierpont Langley... While da Vinci was undoubtedly an innovator in many fields and produced conceptual drawings of aircraft, I don't find that his work directly supported that of the Wright Bros. (IIRC, Mythbusters went to the trouble of actually building the most promising of da Vinci's designs and was unable to make it fly.) We might list every aviation pioneer who antedated the Wrights, but I think it's more appropriate to speak only of proximate influences. 
Indeed, I look askance at not only this string of names, but at many aspects of this article. It seems there is a concerted effort to cut the Wrights down to size, to develop every line of argument that might tend to reduce their priority. This type of excessive revisionism-for-revisionism's-sake is beneath us. The Wrights, like all modern inventors, stand on the shoulders of the giants who went before; but this ought not detract from their significant and remarkable contribution. John Reid 03:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning your closing remark: amen! I agree that this article needs definite improvement. Willy Logan 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences 

message: When googling for information about Allvelo I found http://www.didik.com/horseles/horse.htm whwre it says a person called A.M. Herring flw in 1899 and it's supported by a photo. However, the name sounds suspicius ("I am (a red) herring"). I found another source, but it's just a copy of the first. I continued to search and found some more.. It seems to have been a powered glider. // Liftarn
: Yes, Augustus Herring was a notable player at the time. He even visited the Wrights at Kitty Hawk, when Chanute brought him along. He did put a compressed air motor on a hang glider in 1898. He was also a rather shady character, who was employed for a time by both Langley and Chanute and fell out of favor with each of them. He sent a virtual extortion letter to the Wrights soon after the 1903 power flights claiming he had earlier patents that entitled him to a share of any profits; the Wrights (justifiably) ignored him. Later, he went into business with Curtiss, who ultimately discovered Herring had no significant aeronautical patents and ended his business dealings with Herring.
DonFB  4.228.111.200 16:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A.M. Herring? 

message: I propose the following rewording of the opening sentence: 
"The Wright Brothers, Orville Wright (August 19, 1871 - January 30, 1948) and Wilbur Wright (April 16, 1867 - May 30, 1912), designed and built the first practical airplane and are generally credited with making the first controlled, powered, heavier-than-air flight."      4.228.111.141 22:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sentence

message: Hello.  I am a writer for the Smithsonian Institution's Center for Education and Museum Studies, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers.  An online version of an issue titled "Stories of the Wrights' Flight" is available for free download at this address:
http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/wright/index.html
If you think your audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include the link. We would be most grateful.
Thank you so much for your attention.
: Hey, it's Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can update!  You could have done this yourself!!  But I will add it.  David 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Smithsonian Education link? 

message: Added a photo of the replica of the Wright Brothers' wind tunnel at the Virginia Air and Space Center because I figured the article could benefit from such a visual. Axda0002 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wind tunnel replica 

message: I wonder if someone who knows where it came from can put source pointers into the part of the article that deals with the patent war - it seems somewhat inconsistent with the page I found about it . I'm particularly interested in whether the patent battle between the Wright brothers and Curtiss involved patents held by Curtiss, and whether the establishment of the patent pool for WWI was an industry response or a government mandate - it's being cited routinely as an example of the dangers of unbridled patenting in debates about the patent system, so I'd like to make sure I've got the sources right.... --Alvestrand 09:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the Patent War section, based on Crouch's "The Bishop's Boys" pages 466-467: "With American entry into World War I in April 1917, the government took steps to resolve the entire patent mess. Representatives of the concerned companies formed a Manufacturers Aircraft Association...the members of the new organization entered into cross-licensing agreements permitting a member firm use of the patented technology after payment of a blanket fee...the principal patent holders, Wright-Martin and Curtiss, resolved their differences and received $2 million each."  Crouch only says the government "took steps," so the nature of the "mandate" is not explicitly clear in his explanation. My understanding of the affair is that the Wright 1906 "grandfather" airplane patent was the core issue. By the time the patent pool was formed, the Curtiss company may have been suing other parties (but I don't know if that included the Wright successor company) for infringing its patents. I'm not sure what inconsistencies you find with the Centennial of Flight essay.  DonFB 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent section - sources? 

message: There appears to be an Article size issue with this page, so I would suggest splitting it into seperate pages about each of the brothers. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 19:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Wright brothers]] 

message: Fédération Aéronautique Internationale is actually the world air sports federation.  I think its citation in the opening of the article suggests that it's the sole authority when it comes to aviation, but that's a bit misleading (?)  Hakluyt bean 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting issue. I'm not the editor who included the sentence you mention, but some months ago, I found a link that successfully directed me to an FAI web page that cited the Wright brothers as having made the first powered, controlled, manned flight, or words to that effect. Unfortunately, I can't find that link now. Furthermore, I have tried repeatedly to find that same FAI page by using navigation tools on the FAI website and have never found it. I don't think there is really any dispute that the FAI is the world's "official" organization that certifies aviation records, even if they use the phrase "World Air Sports Federation". Their "about" page includes this sentence,"FAI activities include the establishment of rules for the control and certification of world aeronautical and astronautical records." They and predecessor organizations have been doing it since 1905. However, since their reputed citation of the Wright brothers seems to be missing from their website (or buried so deep it can't be found), I think it may be appropriate to flag the sentence in question with "citation needed". DonFB 03:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fédération Aéronautique Internationale ? 

message: I have been considering removing this section; now seems a good time, in light of the recent argumentative "additions" to this section. This article is a biography of the Wright brothers, not a debating forum for people to grind POV axes about the merits of their achievements. This section does not add to encyclopedic knowledge of what the Wright brothers accomplished. The article already contains a section on competing claims. There is also a separate article, "First Flying Machine," referenced in the introduction, for discussion of competing aviation claims. The Wright-Ferber letter, in particular, lacks a neutral source. Currently, its source is a Brazilian-based hyperbolically biased web article. I have previously requested an authoritative citation for the passage, but none was offered. It would be more encyclopedic--and worthwhile--to cover the many interesting factual twists and turns in the Wright biography, than to bloat the article splitting hairs over their achievement. It might be a good idea for someone to create an entirely new article for such a debate, with a link from this article; a possible title, "Significance of the Wright Brothers Flight". DonFB 02:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Milestones

message: In the popular german newspaper "Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung" was written about a flying show or something other (I don´t know) at Hanover International Airport. Th cockey have showed a copy of the real first airplane, and that was an invention of a German man from Lower Saxony and NOT an invention of Wright brothers! I don´t know if this story ist true, but I´ve read it!
: Would that perhaps be Gustave Whitehead? The problem is that it lacks documentation. // Liftarn
I don´t know, but it can be...
--91.15.247.22 15:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has germans invented the second plane 

message: "On October 7 Mrs. Hart O. Berg (Edith), the wife of the brothers' European business agent, became the first woman airplane passenger when she flew with Wilbur."
This is wrong. Mrs. Hart O. Berg was only the first American woman aeroplane passenger. The first woman aeroplane passenger was Thérèse Peltier on 8 July 1908 when she made a flight of 656 feet with Léon Delagrance in Milan, Italy. This is recognised by the Smithsonian here: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/women_aviators/therese_peltier.htm
I know this is a controversial article and I'm only a random passer-by but I've corrected the factual historical error by adding the word "American".217.205.242.72 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've altered Delagrange's name from the odd Smithsonian spelling "Delagrance" to the more usual spelling "Delagrange". Random Passer-by 00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some historians don't consider Madame Therese Peltier's flight with Delagrange a true flight because Delagrange's Voisin lacked lateral control(meaning no banking turns) and this rendered it not a true airplane such as the Wright Flyer. So 'technically' Mrs Berg IS the first woman to fly in some historians' views in a fully controllable airplane.Koplimek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mrs. Hart O. Berg 

message: In the article about Santos Dumont, there is a explicitly referred section named "Controversy vis-a-vis Wright brothers".
Well, as the matter is so polemic, I think — better: I am sure of this — that, for the sake of equal scientific treatment, here simply equality, there must be an equal or, minus, equivalent section in this article versing about Wright brothers, don't you?
EgídioCampos, 2006.12.18, 21:55 UTC.
===Here, the text about "the so called controversy"...===
Well, as no one makes mention about the requested inclusion, I present it here for suggesting that necessary providency.
*Controversy vis-a-vis Santos Dumont (as regarded new text)

Editors’ Note: The claim to the first flying machine is still the arena for disputes about definitions, facts, and merits.  These polemics are often fueled by strong nationalistic or cultural feelings.  The editors of this article have made a sincere effort over time to present a Neutral Point of View.  Despite this effort, disagreements persist.  The reader is invited to read this section critically, with particular awareness of possibly biased language which might favor one of the many points of view.
In some countries, particularly Brazil and France, Santos-Dumont is considered to be the inventor of the airplane, because of the official and public character of the 14-bisflight as well as some technical points (see below.) This has been traditionally the official position of the Brazilian government, especially since the Getúlio Vargasdictatorship.  Vargas instituted a department within his government for "Information and Propaganda", following the trend in many other countries.  This department created schoolbooks praising all things Brazilian; when the Vargas dictatorship ended in 1945, the department-influenced schoolbooks endured.
The strongest technical criticism of the Wrights' early aircraft is that, while it is clear that these aircraft could sustain controlled flight, they always used some sort of assistance to become airborne.  The assistance ranged in form from requiring a stiff headwind, the use of launch rails, and/or the use of external thrust (a catapult) to obtain the necessary airspeed for launch.  As such, none of the Wrights' early craft took off under their own power in calm wind from an ordinary ground surface as was achieved by the flights of the 14-bis.
In some other countries, particularly the United States, the honour of first effective heavier-than-air flight is most frequently assigned to the Wright brothers for their flight of 39 meters (120 feet) in 12 seconds on 17 December 1903 at Kitty Hawk in North Carolina. Nonetheless, even in these nations there remains a high regard for Santos-Dumont's accomplishments, and a recognition of the 14-bis flight as an important event in early aviation.
Supporters of the Wrights' claim point out that the use of ground rails in particular was necessitated by the Wrights' choice of airfields -- the sand at Kitty Hawk and the rough pasture at Huffman prairie -- rather than the relatively smooth and firm parkland available to Santos-Dumont and was not a reflection of any aerodynamic weakness in their design. Accordingly, the catapult used at Huffman Prairie allowed the use of a relatively short ground rail thus avoiding the time-consuming drudgery of positioning hundreds of feet of rail needed for launches without a catapult.
Supporters of the Wright Flyer claim also point out that 1) although a stiff head wind was required, the aircraft moved under its own power; 2) the Wrights were the first to develop effective aircraft control, which made practical flight possible, even in breezy or windy conditions which are common, as well as in calm conditions. They introduced far superior control mechanisms well before all other winged aircraft, including Santos-Dumont's 14-bis; 3) the Wright Brothers accurately described several principles of flight (including aerodynamics and propeller design) that previous pioneers had either described inaccurately or not at all; 4) the flight has been reproduced experimentally using a carefully recreated replica of the original aircraft.
It is this last point, the construction of replicas of the original Wright Flyer, that has exacerbated the controversy in recent years. Some of these replicas were modified using modern aerodynamic knowledge to improve their flight characteristics. Other replicas failed to fly at some public events. However, at least one flying replica was built without being modified. This aircraft, part of the the Wright Experience project, through painstaking research of original documents, photographs, and artifacts from the original Flyer (conducted much like an archaeological expedition), is believed to be an accurate recreation. The Wright Experience project had the stated purpose of building an exact replica of the original aircraft, whether or not it would actually fly. As it turned out, the aircraft did indeed make several successful flights.
frame|right|Headline from page 8 of the 18 December 1903 edition of The Dayton Daily News.From the archives of theDayton Metro Library Article refers to Wright's flight's without the "gas bag" assistance of Santos-Dumont's earlier Airships.
Much of the controversy with regard to Santos-Dumont vs. the Wrights arose from the difference in their approaches to publicity.  Santos-Dumont made his flights in public, often accompanied by the scientific elite of the time, then gathered in Paris.  In contrast, the Wright Brothers were very concerned about protecting their intellectual property and made their early flights in remote locations and without many international aviation officials present. The defense of their flight was also complicated by the jealousies of other American aviation enthusiasts and disputes over patents. In November 1905, the Aero Club of France learned of the Wrights' alleged flight of 24 miles. They sent a correspondent to investigate the Wrights' accounts. In January 1906, members in the Aero Club of France's meeting were stunned by the reports of the Wrights' flights. Archdeacon sent a taunting letter to the Wrights, demanding that they come to France and prove themselves, but the Wrights did not respond. Thus, the aviation world (of which Paris was the center at the time) witnessed the products of Santos-Dumont's work first hand. As a result, many members, French and other Europeans, dismissed the Wrights as frauds (like many others at the time) and assigned Santos-Dumont the accolade of the "first to fly".
In any case, early reports of the Wrights' activities and the disclosure of key design features in their 1904 European patent filings certainly helped many airplane developers in succeeding years, including Santos-Dumont. Moreover, Santos-Dumont's success was aided by improvements in engine power/weight ratio and other advances in materials and construction techniques that had taken place in previous years. 
There were many machines that got up into the air in a limited fashion and many variations of heavier-than-air titles to which varying amounts of credit have been awarded by various groups. For example, in the former USSR Aleksandr Fyodorovich Mozhaiski is sometimes credited as a "Father of Aviation", for his powered heavier-than-air machine going airborne (generally recognized as the second such flight in that category) in 1884. The disputes about the proper definition of "powered heavier than air flight" still go on. For example, with regard to gliders fitted with small engines that are used non-continuously; these debates do not extend to methods of take off systems. The issue of assisted takeoff can be an issue with early flights, however, since any help given is more significant for how long they were airborne for short flights.
Just as some seek to broaden the accomplishments of the 14-bis flights, there are others who seek to narrow them, although this is less common.  One criticism is that the low altitude at which the 14-bis flew permitted the lift to be augmented by ground effect. The often low flights of many aviation pioneers, including some of the Wrights initial flights, fall prey to a complex debate over classifications of machines that are aided by this phenomenon. 
Also, there have been some questions of the Aero-Club De France's conflict of interest concerning their involvement with Santos-Dumont's claim. The questions largely arise from their incomplete knowledge of the Wrights and their involvement with Santos-Dumont.
EgídioCampos, 2006.12.23, 23:55 UTC.
I'll call an NPOV to this page until the controversy about "who flied first" is explained in a more neutral view. In this article Santos Dumont and others are just mentioned as "other later ppioneers", but the concept of "first flying machine" is vague itself. Candlemass 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a biography of the Wright Brothers, telling about their lives and their accomplishments. The article does refer to the separate article "First flying machine" for readers who want more information on that specific subject. This article also contains a "Competing Claims" section for a brief discussion of various claims. If there are specific parts of this article which are believed to be POV, please quote those parts here in Discussion so they can be examined.  DonFB 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How does a brand new user know what an NPOV tag is? Dhaluza 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't take "experience" to know what an NPOV is, just common sense. Candlemass 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite correct. Here is an FAI page which refers to the Wright Brothers:   DonFB 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ZZ@For the sake of equality...

message: Well, as no one makes mention about the requested inclusion, I present it here for suggesting that necessary providency.
*Controversy vis-a-vis Santos Dumont (as regarded new text)

Editors’ Note: The claim to the first flying machine is still the arena for disputes about definitions, facts, and merits.  These polemics are often fueled by strong nationalistic or cultural feelings.  The editors of this article have made a sincere effort over time to present a Neutral Point of View.  Despite this effort, disagreements persist.  The reader is invited to read this section critically, with particular awareness of possibly biased language which might favor one of the many points of view.
In some countries, particularly Brazil and France, Santos-Dumont is considered to be the inventor of the airplane, because of the official and public character of the 14-bisflight as well as some technical points (see below.) This has been traditionally the official position of the Brazilian government, especially since the Getúlio Vargasdictatorship.  Vargas instituted a department within his government for "Information and Propaganda", following the trend in many other countries.  This department created schoolbooks praising all things Brazilian; when the Vargas dictatorship ended in 1945, the department-influenced schoolbooks endured.
The strongest technical criticism of the Wrights' early aircraft is that, while it is clear that these aircraft could sustain controlled flight, they always used some sort of assistance to become airborne.  The assistance ranged in form from requiring a stiff headwind, the use of launch rails, and/or the use of external thrust (a catapult) to obtain the necessary airspeed for launch.  As such, none of the Wrights' early craft took off under their own power in calm wind from an ordinary ground surface as was achieved by the flights of the 14-bis.
In some other countries, particularly the United States, the honour of first effective heavier-than-air flight is most frequently assigned to the Wright brothers for their flight of 39 meters (120 feet) in 12 seconds on 17 December 1903 at Kitty Hawk in North Carolina. Nonetheless, even in these nations there remains a high regard for Santos-Dumont's accomplishments, and a recognition of the 14-bis flight as an important event in early aviation.
Supporters of the Wrights' claim point out that the use of ground rails in particular was necessitated by the Wrights' choice of airfields -- the sand at Kitty Hawk and the rough pasture at Huffman prairie -- rather than the relatively smooth and firm parkland available to Santos-Dumont and was not a reflection of any aerodynamic weakness in their design. Accordingly, the catapult used at Huffman Prairie allowed the use of a relatively short ground rail thus avoiding the time-consuming drudgery of positioning hundreds of feet of rail needed for launches without a catapult.
Supporters of the Wright Flyer claim also point out that 1) although a stiff head wind was required, the aircraft moved under its own power; 2) the Wrights were the first to develop effective aircraft control, which made practical flight possible, even in breezy or windy conditions which are common, as well as in calm conditions. They introduced far superior control mechanisms well before all other winged aircraft, including Santos-Dumont's 14-bis; 3) the Wright Brothers accurately described several principles of flight (including aerodynamics and propeller design) that previous pioneers had either described inaccurately or not at all; 4) the flight has been reproduced experimentally using a carefully recreated replica of the original aircraft.
It is this last point, the construction of replicas of the original Wright Flyer, that has exacerbated the controversy in recent years. Some of these replicas were modified using modern aerodynamic knowledge to improve their flight characteristics. Other replicas failed to fly at some public events. However, at least one flying replica was built without being modified. This aircraft, part of the the Wright Experience project, through painstaking research of original documents, photographs, and artifacts from the original Flyer (conducted much like an archaeological expedition), is believed to be an accurate recreation. The Wright Experience project had the stated purpose of building an exact replica of the original aircraft, whether or not it would actually fly. As it turned out, the aircraft did indeed make several successful flights.
frame|right|Headline from page 8 of the 18 December 1903 edition of The Dayton Daily News.From the archives of theDayton Metro Library Article refers to Wright's flight's without the "gas bag" assistance of Santos-Dumont's earlier Airships.
Much of the controversy with regard to Santos-Dumont vs. the Wrights arose from the difference in their approaches to publicity.  Santos-Dumont made his flights in public, often accompanied by the scientific elite of the time, then gathered in Paris.  In contrast, the Wright Brothers were very concerned about protecting their intellectual property and made their early flights in remote locations and without many international aviation officials present. The defense of their flight was also complicated by the jealousies of other American aviation enthusiasts and disputes over patents. In November 1905, the Aero Club of France learned of the Wrights' alleged flight of 24 miles. They sent a correspondent to investigate the Wrights' accounts. In January 1906, members in the Aero Club of France's meeting were stunned by the reports of the Wrights' flights. Archdeacon sent a taunting letter to the Wrights, demanding that they come to France and prove themselves, but the Wrights did not respond. Thus, the aviation world (of which Paris was the center at the time) witnessed the products of Santos-Dumont's work first hand. As a result, many members, French and other Europeans, dismissed the Wrights as frauds (like many others at the time) and assigned Santos-Dumont the accolade of the "first to fly".
In any case, early reports of the Wrights' activities and the disclosure of key design features in their 1904 European patent filings certainly helped many airplane developers in succeeding years, including Santos-Dumont. Moreover, Santos-Dumont's success was aided by improvements in engine power/weight ratio and other advances in materials and construction techniques that had taken place in previous years. 
There were many machines that got up into the air in a limited fashion and many variations of heavier-than-air titles to which varying amounts of credit have been awarded by various groups. For example, in the former USSR Aleksandr Fyodorovich Mozhaiski is sometimes credited as a "Father of Aviation", for his powered heavier-than-air machine going airborne (generally recognized as the second such flight in that category) in 1884. The disputes about the proper definition of "powered heavier than air flight" still go on. For example, with regard to gliders fitted with small engines that are used non-continuously; these debates do not extend to methods of take off systems. The issue of assisted takeoff can be an issue with early flights, however, since any help given is more significant for how long they were airborne for short flights.
Just as some seek to broaden the accomplishments of the 14-bis flights, there are others who seek to narrow them, although this is less common.  One criticism is that the low altitude at which the 14-bis flew permitted the lift to be augmented by ground effect. The often low flights of many aviation pioneers, including some of the Wrights initial flights, fall prey to a complex debate over classifications of machines that are aided by this phenomenon. 
Also, there have been some questions of the Aero-Club De France's conflict of interest concerning their involvement with Santos-Dumont's claim. The questions largely arise from their incomplete knowledge of the Wrights and their involvement with Santos-Dumont.
EgídioCampos, 2006.12.23, 23:55 UTC.
I'll call an NPOV to this page until the controversy about "who flied first" is explained in a more neutral view. In this article Santos Dumont and others are just mentioned as "other later ppioneers", but the concept of "first flying machine" is vague itself. Candlemass 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a biography of the Wright Brothers, telling about their lives and their accomplishments. The article does refer to the separate article "First flying machine" for readers who want more information on that specific subject. This article also contains a "Competing Claims" section for a brief discussion of various claims. If there are specific parts of this article which are believed to be POV, please quote those parts here in Discussion so they can be examined.  DonFB 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How does a brand new user know what an NPOV tag is? Dhaluza 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't take "experience" to know what an NPOV is, just common sense. Candlemass 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite correct. Here is an FAI page which refers to the Wright Brothers:   DonFB 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Here, the text about "the so called ''controversy''"...

message: I was looking for the date the plane took of but you don't have it. ADD A BIT MORE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!--69.223.45.49 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a bit more please. 

message: ... "Add a bit more please.
I was looking for the date the plane took of but you don't have it. ADD A BIT MORE PLEASE!!!--69.223.45.49 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does mean... 

message: This article page says it is "protected or semi-protected," but there is no discussion of that here that I saw (the word "protected" or "semi-protected" does not appear on this discussion page). I have been using Wikipedia for a long time, and have been reading up about editing, but have never actually created an account or edited anything until today. I am not able to edit the article. It says "view source" where other pages say "edit." —The preceding unsigned comment was added byFrankskey (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes there's more unhelpful edits going on then helpful ones.  In this case a group of anonomous vandals were repeatedly altering the article.  The semi-protection prevents anonymous users and new users(like yourself) from editing the article.  You should be not-new soonish. i kan reed 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a little late to be of help, but if you look in the upper-right corner of the main article page, you'll see a little padlock icon.  If you mouse-over it, you'll see that it links to the semi-protection policy, and it is the indicator that the page is semi-protected.  This version is sometimes used instead of the longer version that you've seen in the past to avoid cluttering an article.  You should be able to edit the article now, as it has been more than 4 days. —Krellis (Talk) 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: protected or semi-protected status of page

message: Passed for Good Article. It meets all the criteria and then some. Definitely should be nominated for featured article. --Bookworm857158367 04:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article nomination

message: The Santos-Dumont controversy was once part--a very large part--of this article. The Competing Claims section of this article was also once very large, as various editors put in their POVs about early aviators. I think it would be desirable for this section not to start becoming overgrown and overwritten as it once was. The claims for early aviators are now covered in First flying machine, which is referenced twice in this article. This article is a biography of the Wright Brothers. I have previously suggested (see Talk) the creation of a separate article for discussion of the Santos-vs-Wright controversy, where editors could introduce cited opinions at length to cover the issue in full.  DonFB 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumont paragraph 

message: Regarding the change of Ohio's slogan from "Birthplace of Aviation" to "Birthplace of Aviation Pioneers":
1. It applies only to the state quarter design; license plates, for example, are unchanged.
2. It was made unilaterally by the US Mint and without advance notice to Ohio officials who submitted the state quarter design.
3. It is not entirely correct, in that Wilbur Wright was born in Indiana.
Daurand 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Ohio/North Carolina Rivalry 

message: I edited out the driver's license photo and description of driver license security features that relate to the Wright brothers. The photo seems to be a bit of a vanity thing; the quoted text is invisible on the photo in any case; the material does not really add to encyclopedic knowledge of the Wright brothers. I moved the quoted material to the Smithsonian Feud section, where it seems more appropriate. Perhaps the deleted material (complete with driver's license pic) could be added to the article on North Carolina.  DonFB04:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State rivalry 

message: Here is my proposed re-write of the Separate Controls section, intended to reduce excessive detail and improve readability, and to add info about a control wheel and Wilbur's worst accident. Comments?
Wilbur and Orville devised slightly different control systems in the airplanes they built separately in France and the U.S. for their 1908 public demonstrations. The Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum refers to "The Wilbur Method" and "The Orville Method". In Wilbur's method, the roll and yaw controls were combined on the same lever at the pilot's right hand. A forward-backward movement controlled the rudder, while a sideways or left-and-right motion controlled wing-warping. In the Orville Method, moving the stick controlled wing-warping, while a knob atop the stick controlled the rudder. In both methods the left-hand lever operated the forward elevator to control pitch. Wilbur trained French and Italian pilots using his method, and Orville trained American pilots at the Wright Company flight school using his method.
The dual levers lacked the intuitive feel of a control wheel, which Curtiss pioneered in 1908. The Wright brothers, however, were loath to copy any Curtiss innovation: doing so might jeopardize their patent—and their pride. On at least one occasion, a brother paid the price. During a practice flight in the 1905 Flyer at the Kill Devil Hills on May 14, 1908, Wilbur suffered his worst crash when he apparently pushed a control lever the wrong way and slammed the Flyer into the sand at nearly 50 miles an hour. He emerged with bruises and a cut nose, but damage to the airplane ended its flying career—and the practice flights.  DonFB 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate controls 

message: In the article, what the Wrights called "well-digging" is referred to as a "ground loop"; in fact it is known today as "adverse yaw". Oddly enough, "ground loop" and "adverse yaw" are both described correctly elsewhere.
--John Francis Crawford 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In "Wilbur and Orville," (1998 edition) on pages 87-88, biographer Fred Howard writes: "Instead of righting itself in response to the wingwarping control, the machine would start sliding sideways with frightening rapidity toward the low wing. Its tip would strike the ground, and the machine would swing about the grounded wingtip....They called this phenomenon 'well-digging'." A ground loop ("swing about the grounded wingtip"). Adverse yaw, on the other hand, occurred while still in the air. DonFB 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology is wrong 

message: :Image:Stamp-ctc-first-flight.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Stamp-ctc-first-flight.jpg

message: All flights until Santos Dumont only Speculation, while (also Wrights) without Experts and Public. U.J. from Germany 21:15, 25. Januar 2008 (MEZ)
:you do not appear to be well acquainted with what the word "speculation" means.Zebulin (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the same garbage from Alberto Santos-Dumont (where they're not satisfied with eyewitnesses & photographs, because it wasn't in Paris & ASD wasn't there), which also claims the Wrights' "early aircraft depended on a stiff headwind or catapult to become airborne, whereas Santos-Dumont's 14-bis took off under its own power". If somebody who knows more can correct this fiction, here & there, it'd be a good thing.  Trekphiler (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, I'm the guy who inserted the "stiff headwind/catapult" wording in the Santos Dumont article. It was sort of a concession to Santos partisans and does have considerable referencing. Taking off in a 20-plus mph wind was no problem at Kitty Hawk, but at Huffman prairie, they had to wait around for something like at least a 5 to 10 mph breeze to get into the air, using a takeoff rail up to 200 feet long, compared to 60 ft in North Carolina. They could get into the air with a minimal breeze, but would drop to the ground within a few hundred feet of takeoff if the breeze died. One of Wilbur's notebooks mentions the lack of wind on a particular day and he writes, "unable to fly". When they began using the catapult, they achieved a sufficient margin of initial airspeed to make sustained flights and learn how to turn and circle. This information, of course, does not change the essential fact that the Wrights made controlled sustained flights before Santos made his first fixed-wing hop.  DonFB (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Until Santos Dumont all Speculation

message: The new updates to the Wright Brothers article is excellent. I am a fan of the John Evangelist Walsh book, "One day at Kittyhawk" and a model airplane enthusiast(Radio Controlled).
One of the points not generally appreciated is that Wilbur tested different shapes of airfoils for lift AND STABILITY.
He did this by testing the airfoils for lift at increasing angles of incidence in increments of 5 degrees(?).
He dicovered that airfoils that were arcs of circles suffered an ABRUPT loss of lift as incidence increased past 20 or so degrees.  This explain why Lillenthal crashed from 50 feet in the air as he favoured arcs of circles to generate his airfoils and was unable to recover from a stall caused by gustig wind.
The Wright airfoils have a maximum thickness at about one quarter of the chord as measured from the leading edge.  This kind of airfoil start to lose lift at high incidences but more slowly and this can be perceived by the pilot of a small plane ("mushing") allowing correction.
This basic information is found in Walsh's book.
Fred Beal
___________
Lilienthal crashed from 50 feet because of structual failure of the glider(wire to the tail snapped), not it's airfoil design. The same exact failure with Percy Pilcher's 'The Hawk' which was almost completely based on Lilienthal. Yes Wilbur (& Orville) tested the airfoil shapes albeit Orville designed & built the wind tunnel alone while Wilbur went to Chicago to give his speech at the Engineers convention. Koplimek.
Air plaino  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.89.74 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilbur Wright, the unrecognized American Genius 

message: This article states that Orville Wright wasn't married, but out of curiosity I checked familysearch.org and found that a Hattie McLaren is listed as Orville Wright's wife. There is no marriage date given, but nonetheless Hattie McLaren is listed as Orville's wife.
Kylethewright (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the biographies I've read say neither Wilbur nor Orville married. I found the listing you mentioned, and it shows this Mr. Wright's middle name was "Loren," ("Lorin"which was the first name of their next older brother (Reuchlin was the oldest). However, the biographies also mention that neither Wilbur nor Orville (norLoren Lorin and Reuchlin, I believe) had middle names. The FamilySearch.org listing shows that the Orville married to Hattie died in 1959, which is 11 years after Orville of the Wright brothers died. I'm certain that if Orville had married, that fact would be mentioned in many or all of the sources about their lives. Emotionally, he seems to have been "married" to his sister Katharine, which may explain why he ostracized her when she actually did marry in 1926, at the ripe age of 52. DonFB (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can be thankful they did not both die young, or their story might have become hopelessly compromised, not merely sullied as it continues to be by the revisionists--overseas and home-grown. Gary Bradshawhas some interesting thoughts along this line. DonFB (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ann Honious has some great words to say along these lines as well. Koplimek (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Orville Wright married? 

message: They did not have any time to have any dicussion about the Birds and the Bees to there parents because they were buisy building planes that is why they are not married or have any children because they did not know how to produce any children.
-Liza Leykina  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.70.240(talk) 00:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend reverting the redirect. Respectfully submitted. LanceBarber (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brothers vs. brothers 

message: If I could get logged into my account I would write it from it but anyway were the wrights christians?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by71.111.58.250 (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relglion  

message: geeez geeez u ppls dont go on aim plz do it plzzzzzz geeeeze i give u free stuff  —Preceding unsigned comment added byTimmypeyton55 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  im a loger 

message: This is a beautifully written entry. It is balanced, factual, thorough and to the point. The writing is also really beautiful (in a spare, factual encyclopedia writing sort-of-way) in a number of places. It is in keeping with the highest standards of encyclopedia writing. Good work everyone! WardHayesWilson (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marvelous 

message: It was on a Saturday. So today just a little shout out in remembrance of that landmark event August 8 1908 - August 8 2008
**********
When I was in San Francisco lately, someone pointed out an area by San Francisco bay and claimed that the Wright Brothers had flown there at some time.  Why is there no mention of this in the entry?  I am confused. Was there any involvement of Southern California and the San Francisco area during the careers of the Wright brothers?  —Precedingunsigned comment added by 71.63.129.59 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 100th Anniversary Wilbur's first French flight August 8 1908 

message: Suggestion to create a new section that documents the Wright Brothers' connections to other great personalities of their time. For example, their support and timely patronage of their boyhood school chum, the great American black poet Paul Laurence Dunbar. This inter-racial friendship and the connection between two huge influences within American society, is an example of everything that is right with America. Presently, this connection is mentioned in the PLD article, but not in the WB article.
I'm sure that there are other fascinating personal connections involving the Wright Brothers that would be astonishing and interesting.
24.80.167.111 (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ann Honious writes about the Wrights and their friendship with Paul in "What Dreams We Have"Koplimek (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connections to other famous personalities 

message: Why is Kitty Hawk claimed to be the location of the first flight, when clearly, it took place at the base of Kill Devil Hill located in the town of Kill Devil Hills, adjacent to Kitty Hawk?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.114.219 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kill Devil Hills vs. Kitty Hawk 

message: I suggest that the section entitled The Smithsonian feud (shouldn't feud be capitalized?) be improved further by inclusion of a link to a Wikipedia page containing the full text of the contract between the Wright heirs and the Smithsonian. In that full text, also, the mandatory label reads differently, slightly. The words are nearly all capitalized, and this should be reproduced accurately, as follows:
The Original Wright Brothers' Aeroplane
The World's First Power-Driven Heavier-than-Air Machine
in Which Man Made Free, Controlled, and 
Sustained Flight
Invented and Built by Wilbur and Orville Wright
Flown by Them at Kittey Hawk, North Carolina
December 17, 1903
By Original Scientific Research the Wright Brothers Discovered
the Principles of Human Flight
As Inventors, Builders and Flyers They Further Developed the Aeroplane
Taught Man to Fly and Opened the Era of Aviation
Deposited by the Estate of Orville Wright
"The first flight lasted only twelve seconds, a flight very modest compared with that of birds, but it ws nevertheless the first in the history of the world in which a machine carrying a man had raised itself by its own power into the air in free flight, had sailed forward on a level course without reduction of speed and had finally landed without being wrecked. The second and third flights were a little longer, and the fourth lasted 59 seconds covering a distance of 852 feet over the ground against a 20 mile wind."
Wilbur and Orville Wright
(from Century Magazine, Vol. 76, September 1908, p.649)
From Agreement signed by Executor of the Wright Estate and Secretary of the Smithsonian, November 23, 1948
available in print in History by Contract, O'Dwyer and Randolph (see citation 68), p.237-240
Further, aviation buffs should be changed to aviation researchers in the line:
Some aviation buffs, particularly those who promote the legacy of Gustave Whitehead, now accuse the Smithsonian of refusing to investigate claims of earlier flights.[68]
AeroHistorian (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can enact these suggestions. Possibly, the "Agreement" page could be added to Wikisource, with a citation to O'Dwyer's book. The only online source I know of is the archived page from the former GlennHCurtiss.com website. According to Wikipedia style rules, only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalized in section headings; thus "feud" is lower case. DonFB (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve Smithsonian Feud section 

message: According to what I've read, as of 1904 they did not intend to return to Kitty Hawk, at least not any time soon. Crouch writes in chapter 20 of "Bishop's Boys":
:"There would be no more trips to the isolated Outer Banks. They had always known that operations would have to be transferred closer to home at some point, so they could continue to work without the expense entailed by extended stays at Kitty Hawk."
Also, the chance of newspaper coverage should actually have been much greater close to Dayton compared to faraway Kitty Hawk, although as we have seen, reporters were pretty much oblivious to their activities. (Even though some newspapers reported the 1903 flights, the U.S. press and public were little impressed. In France, however, the aeronautical community took the events much more seriously.)  DonFB (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staying near Dayton 

message: hi Don, in response to a multitude of edits, I recently researched that many a newspaper ran with the December 17 flights, more than we often think. The problem is that a number of newspapers then are defunct such as the New York Herald. The telegram was addressed by sons to their father, so to many news editors they reasoned two sons would not lie to their father. The public(readers) may have been skeptical as many a scattered tinkerer were building contraptions in their back yard to fly. Most interesting the newspapers actually quote the Army being very interested in the Wrights' flights(five years before they gave a contract). This Army interest makes sense as they had just sunk a ton of money in the Langley full sized machine with negative results. It makes for interesting reading from our modern perspective. If you would like to check out some of the newspaper clippings, just google "Wilbur & Orville Wright Timeline 1867-1948" , this is part of the Library of Congress Wright Papers. Thanks Koplimek (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kop, I understand your thinking about newspaper editors assuming the brothers would not send phony info to their father. But that is, after all, speculation about what the editors were thinking, not verifiable referenced knowledge. Rather than including speculation about what the editors were thinking, it seemed useful to include actual facts about how the story first got out (the leaked telegram, the very inaccurate initial news articles). The newspaper Scrapbook section on the brothers in the Library of Congress online is indeed fascinating, with a treasure trove of information. There's a bunch of other things I'd love to include in the article, but the article is getting pretty long, so I've tried to be fairly restrained lately in making additions. DonFB (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Virginian-Pilot headline was totally inaccurate but was only correct in stating the Brothers' flew. Some newspaper accounts were more correct than others. Do you think certain Wikipedia articles should be extended into a second page and the cited reference sections should be reduced at the end of Wiki articles? Koplimek (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I think reducing references to shorten an article (if that's what you mean) would not be advisable. Often, when an article gets very long, some part(s) of it are split off into their own separate article(s). That's already happened to some extent with the glider section. DonFB (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Newpapers, The Public, The Army 

message: The Wrights spent the better part of 1907 in France and for the most part in negotiations. But I find 1907 the year that is least documented of the Wrights' career. Other than negotiations what did the brothers do over in Europe during their extended stay? Did they take in the sights or journey to other countries, this was their first trip overseas. It's been a while since I read "The Papers of Wilbur & Orville Wright" c. Marvin McFarland 1953. Based on their letters compiled in 'Papers', they corresponded frequently with their family back in Dayton. Also to stay in France or Europe on an extended basis meaans they had to have significant funds. The bicycle business had been hurting during their years traveling to Kitty Hawk and by 1907 they were virtually out of that business. So where did the income come from I alwsys wondered? perhaps they did have a significant amount of money put away or had invested. 1906 isn't that much better covered. We know they built several more airplanes in their shop and design a new 35 horsepower motor for the new planes. 1906 is mired in lots of correspondence with some very important people but the brothers didn't venture too far from Dayton that year. Koplimek (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Crouch does a good job explaining their activities in both years in "The Bishop's Boys," my go-to source for many WB facts. Fred Howard's biography, "Wilbur and Orville" also covers the period well. Those years are certainly the least glamorous and dramatic in the story, although the hit-miss character of the brothers' negotiations is quite interesting and sometimes humorous. Financially, the brothers got a few thousand dollars from their father's sale of farmland around this general time. I think the article is probably already too long now to add much about the period, although I have considered adding a sentence or two to characterize the uncertain, frustrating and often inflexible nature of their contract negotiations. I haven't looked for it, but I think Crouch has a good sentence along those lines that could be quoted or referenced. I also found the following in my notes: "But while their combined talents made it possible for the Wright brothers to produce the airplane, their mistrust of others almost cost them the credit for it."--American Experience program, PBS. Regarding the length of the article, in order to reduce the byte count to "make room" for a modest amount of new material, how would you feel about removing the Individual Control Arrangements and Ohio/North Carolina Rivalry sections? I believe the article could survive without them.  DonFB (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Don, actually I don't mind those two sections. I rather like the fact that Wiki can include the esoteric in articles so long as they're not too long. The importance of the Wrights as inventors of the airplane necessitates a longer than normal article I believe, but within reason. For instance the bit I included about Wilbur's speech in 1901 to the Western Society of Engineers. In my entry on the Lusitania I put the info about Wilbur's flights in New York in 1909 and the fact that he flew over the ship. It was historical and not well known either as a Wright Brothers topic or a Lusitania topic. Anyone can find info like Wilbur's Western Society of Engineers speech in any worthy source on the Wrights. But most people clicking on to Wikipedia wouldn't know that info unless they were Wright scholars or buffs. I don't think Wiki should stoop to the level of for example Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book Encyclopedia which are well known for the brevity of their articles. Perhaps another comparison is the emptying of the modern library of books to accomodate electronic media. I for one love the extra material you'll find by idly thumbing through a 'physical' book, material you wouldn't necessarily looking for. I myself am partial to "The Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright" c.1953 compiled by Marvin McFarland and also writings by Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith. I agree with you that Wiki articles shouldn't ramble on about every little tidbit about a person's existence. For example the overlong Elvis Presley article. But I digress. Koplimek(talk) 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree the subject justifies a "longer than normal" article and also with the proviso, "within reason".  DonFB (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure, that sounds good to me. DonFB (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1906, 1907 The Lost Years

message: Does anyone know how Wilbur and Orville managed to raise a 1400 pound weight up to the top of the derrick? In their 1904 & 1905 Huffman Prairie years it was just the two of them and Charlie Taylor at the field. I find it hard to believe that three men could handle a 1400 hundred pound drop weight manually. So what did the weight comprise of? how did they raise the weight to the top of the derrick by themselves? Later when the Wrights flew in public in 1908 & 1909 newsreel footage & still camera photos always shows a group of men hauling the weight rope up into place on the derrick. Usually a group of about ten or more men. All in all I would just like to know how they managed such a weight when they were experimenting alone in 1904 & 1905. It leads me also to believe that the process of putting the weight into place lends the credence that the brothers didn't always take off with the catapult system. Also did they have a mule & cart ready to assist them with hauling the weight? Too bad the brothers didn't document or log each take-off/flight and whether it was a derrick take-off or just a monorail launch Koplimek (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently read that they used a block-and-tackle pulley arrangement at Huffman to gain leverage and reduce the force needed to hoist the weight. Unfortunately, I didn't make note of where I saw this and don't remember. But you raise a good contrasting point about the practice in Europe of people vying for the "honor" of handling the rope to help pull up the weight. Library of Congress online images show Wilbur's notebook pages from 1904-5, with his entries for most flights, including date, flight duration and distance, length of the rail and notations of landing damage, accident, etc. However, I don't think any of the entries mentions the catapult. I have never seen anything about them using a mule. The Centennial of Flight website has an area that shows a "flight log" webpage for individual years from 1904 to 1918 with entries or summaries of all the flying they ever did.  DonFB(talk) 05:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

text: They did experiment with varying amounts of weight in the range of about 1200 to 1600 pounds, as I recall. They tried multiple launches to gauge the effectiveness of different amounts of weight. They eventually settled on something closer to 1200 than 1600 lbs. DonFB (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Derrick/Catapult system

message: does anyone know if Israel Perry, the schooner captain who took Wilbur across Albemarle Sound to Kitty Hawk for the first time in 1900, related to the later Wright pilot Calbraith Perry Rodgers? Cal came from the famous Perry clan of sailorss. Koplimek (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A curious coincidence in names. From my reading, historians know almost nothing about Israel Perry, except what Wilbur wrote in a single personal note about that first boat trip.DonFB (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel Perry/Calbraith Perry Rodger

message: Substituted at 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment