Jump to content

Talk:Wright brothers/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Influence of Cayley

I removed yet again a sentence saying the Wright brothers built on the work of Cayley. I did so even though the two supplied sources support this fact. The problem is one of WP:WEIGHT: none of the Wright brothers' biographies give this much importance to Cayley. As I understand it, Cayley did not immediately get a response from aviation pioneers, but eventually his work inspired a bunch of others such as Lilienthal, and from there the Wright brothers built on the body of work coming from everybody who had preceded them. Cayley is not singled out as being particularly important to the Wrights. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree emphasizing Cayley this way is undue. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

First CONTROLLED manned heavier than air, powered flight

They where not even the first to do Powered, heavier than air, manned flight. --A12bc34be5 (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

A link to a reliable source that states who was (the first to do powered, heavier than air, manned flight) would be helpful here. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Shivkar Bāpuji Talpade developed first aeroplane

The Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur, are acknowledged to have invented and built the world’s first successful airplane and made the first controlled, powered and sustained flight in 1903.

However, in 1895, an Indian, Shivkar Talpade, a drawing teacher from JJ School of Art in Mumbai, is said to have flown an aircraft, Marutsakha, on Girgaon Chowpatty.


Talpade is said to have relied on an ancient text to build his model aircraft. Now, throwing light on the text is a book that will be out later this year, by Ganesh Nerlekar-Desai, epigraphist and manuscriptologist at Shivaji University’s Manuscript Research Centre at Kolhapur.

There are two streams of thought regarding the existence of aircraft in ancient times. One believes that the ancients did build and fly aircraft, while the other believes it is too fantastic to be true.

However, what cannot be disputed is the existence of an ancient text on aerodynamics, titled ‘Vaimanikprakarnm’. “At the Bharat Itihas Sanshodhak Mandal in Pune, there exists an undated handwritten manuscript of Vaimanikprakarnm, a treatise on aerodynamics, said to be originally written by sage Bharadwaj. Lord Shiva apparently imparted knowledge of aerodynamics to his son Ganesha, who then transferred it to Bharadwaj,” said Nerlekar-Desai.

Other manuscripts of Vaimanikprakarnm exist at Oriental Institute at The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda; Gujarat Ayurved University in Jamnagar and one was in the possession of Talpade, who flew his aircraft at Girgaon Chowpatty.

The text contains information about ways to build aircraft and also how to protect them from the harsh sun and attacks from the ground. “Vaimanikprakarnm suggests the use of certain gemstones on an aircraft to protect it should it venture too close to the sun. It also talks about five different types of lightning and offers solutions to make the aircraft lightning-proof,” said Nerlekar-Desai. He added that the treatise also says that in order to insulate your aircraft from cannon shots from the ground, its body should be made of crystal.''''Bold text'we designed AEROPLANE AND A BRITISHERS TOOK THE THE MODEL BY INFLUENCING TALPADE.INDIA BUILT THE FIRST AEROPLANE IN 1885. JAI HIND — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.146.5 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a WP:FORUM for one's own research or opinions. Are there sources for this? At best, this belongs on Talk:Shivkar_Bapuji_Talpade; that article would have to change to support these claims before anything can change here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, there's plenty on WP about this preposterous claim. None with anyting like a satisfactory source.TheLongTone (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Huguenot descent

The editor Rsarlls has been repeatedly inserting the claim that the Wright brothers are of Huguenot descent. I have challenged this claim because it's cited to a self-published web site. I'm opening a discussion here so other editors can weigh in. --Laser brain (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's definitely not a reliable source. It's some guy publishing information on his ancestors. I agree better sourcing is needed to include it in the article. Willondon (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I just finished reading Tom Crouch's "The Bishop's Boys" which goes into minute, encyclopedic detail of the Wright's ancestry and I don't remember it being mentioned. I'll look again tonight after work.
As an aside, despite what I thought to be a somewhat slow start, the detail that Crouch put into covering the Wright's ancestry and formative years really went a long way in explaining their behavior as adults. Overall it was a VERY GOOD book. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
I gave a quick look into the matter anew, as I had heard about that assertion already before. Mostly self-published genealogies, however if it comes to be verifiable, the pair seems to be "Huguenot" first, then "Dutch" ancestries, not the reverse. Everywhere I was able to find them, the Brittain / Gano names appear before the Van Cleve's and Van Dick. --Askedonty (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The Bishop's Boys, Page 21, Bottom of the page -
"That first American Wright, Samuel, was the great-great-grandson of John Wrighte, who, with his first wife Olive, had purchased Kelvedon Hall, Essex, in 1538. Samuel, a Puritan, was part of the "Great Migration" to Massachusetts, arriving in Boston in the early 1630's." He later became an in-ordained minister in Springfield, MA.
Much of the text in this chapter is directly from Milton Wright's (their father's) manuscript on family history and his ancestors. So I'm not sure where anyone is getting Huguenot because Puritan doesn't equal Huguenot - they are completely different. Ckruschke (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
On the web transcribed excerpts of Milton Wright's manuscript are available at wright-brothers.org. I checked the usual genealogy sites [1] in more detail. The Brittain's I had mentioned above traced back appear to be of English descent ( the Reed's Stillwell branch). The Huguenot member would be then ( perhaps Hugueniot) the eldest son of Etienne Gayneau (born in La Rochelle). I think that component is to tiny relatively to the width of the several branches to be considered a defining characteristic, unless explicitely requested by heirs. I'm not a genalogist however I think the editor should verify that raw genealogical data does not weigh precisely distributions, after generation accumulate. An other point and still also lost into inverifiability, Stephen Gano, the son of Etienne, would not have even belonged to a Huguenot family himself [2]. A Huguenot legacy is to be considered by the contrasting scale of people like Gaspard de Coligny. Otherwise a reference through one's inclusion by Dutch Americans is not exclusive of the individual. --Askedonty (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
If the great majority of biographies say nothing about Huguenot then it would be undue emphasis for us to say differently. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong ISBN for McFarland ?

The ISBN 0-306-80671-1 for the McFarland book is not found on Google Books, and on OpenLibrary it points to Miracle at Kitty Hawk (also letters), but content is not accessible. I suggest using https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001114607 instead. TGCP (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 6 external links on Wright brothers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Lift Equation

I think it would be helpful to SEE the change in lift formula by having the correct lift equation beside the one Wrights had to deal with.75.86.172.174 (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have this information, please feel free to be bold and add it if you think it would be helpful.
If not, maybe someone else who does can chime in. Ckruschke (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017

Add link:

X: Elwood Doherty, a Curtiss pilot,[132] coaxes the structurally modified Langley Aerodrome into the air above the surface of Keuka Lake near Hammondsport, New York, September 17, 1914.

to

Y: Elwood Doherty, a Curtiss pilot,[132] coaxes the structurally modified Langley Aerodrome into the air above the surface of Keuka Lake near Hammondsport, New York, September 17, 1914. 81.149.141.199 (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2017

72.24.93.191 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You should do stuff like describe the flyer

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Their breakthrough and equilibrium

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] This method became and remains standard on fixed-wing aircraft of all kinds.[8][9] From the beginning of their aeronautical work, the Wright brothers focused on developing a reliable method of pilot control as the key to solving "the flying problem".

I have seen opinions that the real breakthrough was their improvement of the efficiency of the propeller. This consisted of the overall designs of the profiles (section views)(note use of plurals) of the propeller and the change of the angle of attack at different diameters. This provided enough propulsion to allow the motors of the day to get enough speed for take off. Apparently the early work on this was done on bicycles (if the wind was not sufficient) with various air flow driven propellers mounted in front to compare performances.

Unless aircraft are stable naturally, (that is, without pilot input, they seek an equilibrium that can remain flying) they are impossible to fly except by highly practiced pilots. (Unstable aircraft are aerobatic and fighter aircraft, the latter being so unstable that computer assistance is mandatory) In normal aircraft the controls are used to overcome this stability to bank, change pitch etc and sometimes/rarely to correct an attitude caused by an unusually strong gust etc. The brothers research in wing/propeller profiles and their desired regular change in the "position of the center of lift with speed change" probably allowed the brothers to design an aircraft "stable enough" that it did not require much/any pilot input which wrt banking could not have been highly effective considering their use of wing-twisting compared to later use of hinged ailerons. Considering the previous paragraph, it might be more accurate to append "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." with "under unusual external forces." OR. "Among the brothers' fundamental breakthroughs was the design of a stable aircraft with three-axis controls effective enough to overcome this stability to enable the pilot to steer and change the pitch of the aircraft when required." Anyone (competent) may edit the article with the modification immediately above if they consider it relevant enough. If anyone can verify (with sources) the second paragraph concerning propeller efficiencies please edit the article.

The unenboldened Ecstatist (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

As you indicate, verification with sources is necessary for substantive changes to an article. Your comments do sound rather like your original thought, which translates, in Wikipedia-speak, to "original research," a prohibited practice in articles. The article does mention the brothers' innovative work with propellors. Reliable sources, probably without exception, credit the brothers with invention of three-axis control and describe that invention as fundamental to their success. DonFB (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Wright brothers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wright brothers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

At "... Hudson-Fulton celebrations ...", please add the following link: Hudson-Fulton celebrations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.122.133 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Serious doubts regarding Amos Root as a reliable witness

A free book appeared recently on the net. It groups together all the letters and articles of Amos Root connected to the Wright brothers. (see - The letters and articles of Amos Ives Root ). On November 9, 1905, A. I. Root sent a letter to the Wrights with this message, “it would relieve me of the charge of having made a big fuss about something that had not after all panned out to amount to anything” (Amos Ives Root, “Letter to the Wright brothers”, November 9, 1905), which is inconsistent with his January 1, 1905, article in which he claimed he had seen Wilbur flying in a circuit, on September 20, 1904. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.62.236.137 (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2018

hi i am part of Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.158.35.50 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

Footnote #157 reads, "McCullough, 2015, "The Wright Brothers", Epliogue pp. 260–261" It should read "McCullough, 2015, "The Wright Brothers", Epilogue pp. 260–261 Mall0y (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for catching that! Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2018

Childhood section- change "In 1878 their father, who traveled often as a bishop in the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, brought home a toy helicopter for his two younger sons." to "While residing in Cedar Rapids, Iowa in 1878, their father, who traveled often as a bishop in the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, brought home a toy helicopter for his two younger sons.

Source: https://www.loc.gov/collections/wilbur-and-orville-wright-papers/articles-and-essays/collection-highlights/the-brothers-boyhood/

"Deposition given by Orville Wright, January 13, 1920 Bishop Wright was in the habit of bringing small toys home to his children after traveling on church business and it was to one of these toys that Orville attributed his and Wilbur's earliest interest in flight. The Penaud helicopter that Milton Wright brought home in 1878 was a variation of one of Europe' s oldest mechanical toys. In this court document submitted by the forty-eight-year-old Orville, he tells how the young brothers' fascination with a small toy powered by a rubber band eventually led them to a much more serious consideration of the problem of flight." Jpeterseni35 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2018

2605:6000:2942:6C00:817A:145A:AA45:DC8A (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

European skepticism

This section seems biased, it doesnt give even one reason why they were sketpic, and try to depict them as meanies too proud to accept the one and only truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:3504:5C00:381C:1F95:F60C:D227 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

1909->2019 cost equivalent

I noted the article states that the US Army bought a flyer in 1909 for $30,000 - seems to me this number lacks quite the meaning it ought to have for a present day reader. In today's dollars (according to a random website on such things; likely just accounting for inflation), $30,000 of 1909 dollars is equivalent to about $445,000 in 2019 dollars. The Wright's finally got some reward for their efforts. Any objection to including the 2019 equivalent amount as a parenthetical statement? Bdushaw (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Beg pardon, I had started from 1919...$30,000 in 1909 dollars is equivalent to $846,000 today. Bdushaw (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a Wiki tool that will pull forward past dollar figures - I forget what it is and/or how to do it - but that's the way to make it happen. Then it will automatically recalculate for 2020, 2021, and beyond. Seen it on several pages - just can't think where right now. I'm sure you can find it. Ckruschke (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

The importance of causality...

The article has this statement: "John T. Daniels, the Coast Guardsman who took their famous first flight photo, died the day after Orville.[158]" The trouble is the citation given, no. 158 dates to 1931, whereas Orville died in 1948. Ah hem. Bdushaw (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Main motivation?

I've read this article now - although I knew the basic story, I am still amazed at this accomplishment. A well-written article! I post here because I find myself puzzled as to the motivation of the Wrights - what drove them to do these experiments and spend their own money (quite a lot; were they borrowing?) and several years to conduct the experiments and build the aircraft? It strikes me that it was the science and technical challenge more than anything (I too like to build box kites...why? Its cool...). The story, as described in the article, devolves into sordid complaints about credit, law suits, poor business management, etc. It's obvious the Wrights wanted to capitalize on their flying machine - but it seems to me unlikely this was the original motivation; they were not really businessmen. More, after the fact, realizing/hoping they could make a lot of money on what they'd done. It is true they were keenly aware of patent issues early on, and the article notes their avoidance of the press over "industrial security", so perhaps it was financial more than pure science. Were they aware of the opportunities for military contracts/prizes for successful air planes before they started? All this to suggest that perhaps the article ought to have a small section summarizing their initial motivations? There was a phrase from the movie Lawrence of Arabia: "riding the whirlwhind" - I suspect once they got started they were riding the whirlwind. Bdushaw (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Wilbur was the driving force. In a letter to his father after his slow recovery from his hockey accident, but still years before starting aeronautical pursuits, he acknowledges he is probably not well-suited for a business career and is considering the teaching profession--which may have been his original intent when he was planning to go to Yale--before he got his teeth knocked out. But he did not follow through. There is really little or nothing in the record hinting at Wilbur's interest prior to his first letter to the Smithsonian in 1899 asking for aeronautical literature. A year later, in his first letter to Octave Chanute, he said he was "afflicted with the belief" that human flight was possible. Starting his first season at Kitty Hawk, he wrote to his father that there was some slight chance of becoming rich and famous from their experiments. But both boys seemed to consider their first Kitty Hawk trip little more than an adventurous vacation. Yet, "the flying problem" got in their veins, and by the close of their 1902 trip, they had made so much progress, they began to see the potential rewards. But when they started, there was no grand plan, and the motivation appears to have been adventure and a change of pace for the two home-bound bachelors as much as anything. DonFB (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Having read several biographies on the brothers, their motivations were NOT money or fame or future contracts for an airplane. It is always presented as a childhood interest that sparked something in the pair and never left. Once Wilbur was hurt and had all this time on his hands, he turned to flight as essentially a thought experiment and something that he was convinced that he and Orville could solve as they soon discovered that the aeronautical "data" of the leaders in the field were in fact either incorrect or outright wrong. The pair was very logical and pragmatic and disciplined. Once they saw a problem, they did not deviate from it and the pair was only discouraged from the chase once or twice and it never lasted. If you read The Bishop's Boys, you get a clear picture as to the motivation of their family that is not included in many other books. Its much longer, but the opening paragraphs paint a pretty good picture on what it was like to be "a Wright". Ckruschke (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
I would disagree to some degree about not being good businessmen. The bicycle business was fairly successful and funded the airplane experiments. --rogerd (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say they weren't good businessmen. I said the work to perfect their airplane was clearly not motivated by money. Huge difference. Ckruschke (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
I found a relevant passage that I knew existed in one of the WB biogs: pages 130-131 in Tom Crouch's "The Bishop's Boys" (2003). Crouch quotes Wilbur writing in a letter to his sister-in-law that: "the boys of the Wright family are all lacking in determination and push", presumably including himself. Crouch writes: "for fourteen years, from 1885 to 1899, Wilbur had allowed life and opportunity to pass him by." Wilbur wrote the letter in 1901, and Crouch uses it as a way to show that Wilbur, by then, motivation-wise, had found his true calling. Link: [3] DonFB (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The issue is touched on, lightly, in the WBros article, at the end of the second paragraph of the "Early career and research" section, supported by footnote #26 (currently). DonFB (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I was impressed with their early program of wind tunnels, analysis, trial engineering, etc. which are all the hallmarks of a basic science program. Basic science people are rarely business people; this work was a typical obsession-compulsion that I am familiar with (I am a scientist). The link above is quite useful, a telling quote for me is at the end of that chapter: "... He had a new hobby so fascinating and challenging as to be all-consuming, giving him a new purpose and direction in life." They were building the glider for the sake of the glider, likely no thought at all to fame, fortune, or recognition. And they had hit upon the threads of the problem that would lead to success. Also interesting that they did all this without a formal education in fluid mechanics, mechanical engineering (or aeronautics :) ) (which likely contributed to the later sordid claims for credit, patent infringement, etc. Someone with a wider lens on the world may have realized that what was done belonged to the world.) I don't know if this discussion leads to a consensus to add a small section or paragraph on these primordial motivations - I lean towards thinking it would be a useful development for the article; it seems to be a small hole in the article. I leave it to you all to resolve the question. Bdushaw (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2020

In the first paragraph, Wright Flyer is in italics, while Wright Flyer II and Wright Flyer III are not. Please remove the italics from the first one, or please add italics to the others. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:D89D:6E58:BDD7:2115 (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.
Actually, it's not an inconsistency, but a conscious style choice. "Wright Flyer" is treated as an actual name, the equivalent of an italicized ship name, while "Wright Flyer II" and "Wright Flyer III"]] are not. This is done fairly consistently in all three of the aircraft articles. It would be best to establish a consensus to change this first, and notify all 3 article talk pages of that discussion while it takes place. - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

Requesting to add Abbas ibn Firnas in see also section. 45.125.220.162 (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, but I did add a link to History of aviation, where he has a brief mention. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

'Adding power' section

Rather than witter on about matters of opinion, as in the preceding posts, what about this:

"To keep the weight down the engine block was cast from aluminum, a rare practice at the time."

  1. This is unreferenced nonsense.
  2. It was indeed a rare practice to make engine blocks out of pure aluminum, it was in fact entirely unheard of.
  3. Not the block, but the crankcase was made of aluminium.
  4. Even worse, it wasn't made of aluminum, but aluminum alloy, a rather different beast.
  5. I have at least three reliable sources pertaining to the approximate composition of the crankcase alloy - anyone care to pre-empt me?

MinorProphet (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You could edit the text accordingly, and cite your reliable sources, in the article, as references. DonFB (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


I went ahead and changed block to crankcase. It is evident simply viewing the photo that this engine has separate cylinders, not a block in the usual sense. I disagree on concern about aluminum alloy. In modern usage it is very common to generically refer to parts as aluminum when they are invariably some alloy. Unless the brothers actually developed the alloy or some such, that is an unnecessary detail. Gjxj (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand. I just reverted to block. the 03 engine is quite different from the 1910 one shown. A number of sources do indeed call it a block design. Gjxj (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021

On the Wright Brothers pge, there is mention of the time Wilbur was hit in the face with a hockey stick and lost his front teeth. There is no mention that the person who hit him with the hockey stick was notorious Ohio Killer Oliver Crook Haugh, who would later be put to death over the murder of hos father, mother, and brother. He was also being prescribed cocaine from his dentist at the team. This is confirmed in the book “The Wright Brothers” by David McCullough which included a letter from Wilbur’s father confirming it. Think it would be good to include in the wikipedia page. 2601:196:4800:EB80:C89E:F2A3:BF0D:ADD1 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Please seek consensus for this change, and if possible provide more details on the citation, such as page number. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Good Article" clumsily written.

Can't change the sloppy sentence construction. Would like to change "on 17 and June 18" to "on June 17 and 18". What exactly is 17 and June? Before locking, try harder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.230.5 (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

Please change the part where it shows the picture of Orville and Wilbur Wright, please change the caption below it that says ‘ Orville (left) and Wilbur Wright in 1905’ to ‘ Orville Wright (left) and Wilbur Wright (right) in 1905’ LightningCow (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Orville and Wilbur Wright is correct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledgment

I really enjoying reading this and I would like ask if you guys can also do the same by writing all the personal information including their history for all the scientists and world inventors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.255.57 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Bias in article

This article is currently slightly biased. It is not « generally accepted » that the Wright brothers were the first to flight. There is a dispute on this topic, especially with the first flights of Santos Dumont. IMO the role of an encyclopedia should be to expose clearly that there’s no conscensus. We don’t want to enter this fight by claiming that one or the other was the first or we should state clearly that there is a controversy. 2A01:CB11:8079:CF1F:8C01:A994:DD96:FDC9 (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It is "generally accepted" that the Wright Brothers are "...generally credited with inventing, building, and flying the world's first successful motor-operated airplane" This is cited in the article. It's obviously not accepted in Brazil, but Brazil is a minority in this. There are other claims, almost all of which pre-date both the Wright Brothers' and Dumont's claims. BilCat (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree with BilCat. Santos-Dumont's very short and barely controlled flight cam years after that of the Wright Bros, and as for Whitehead....TheLongTone (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Addition request

Fun fact: the brothers’ first manned flight in 1903 was achieved nine weeks after the New York Times published an article called “Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly”, in which they predicted that manned flight would take between 1 and 10 million years to achieve. Worth mentioning ..? Paste555 (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No. It wasn't the first prediction the NYT got wrong, and it certainly wasn't the last either. BilCat (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

Change date of death in Later Years as it says he died 1917. 174.101.55.4 (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BilCat (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm unclear what you think is incorrect. Wilbur died in 1912, as the section clearly states. His father died in 1917. BilCat (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Merits of design

Tell about merits of design 223.187.138.113 (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Chord Conversion Error

Some of the conversion are off from the chords even on the original website you cited. 12.159.107.132 (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2022

The first plane was made by shivkar bapuji talpade not by wright brothers Insane aakash (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. DonFB (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Consensus for such a change will clearly not be forthcoming. Firstly, because it is hopelessly vague. Secondly because it cites no sources. And thirdly, because claims regarding supposed manned flights made by Shivkar Bapuji Talpade have been given no credibility whatsoever in reliable sources. Talpade's supporters have failed to provide anything remotely resembling credible evidence for such flights having occurred. Some sources have suggested that it is just about possible that Talpade built some sort of unmanned flying machine, but even if that could be proven to have occurred, it would be of relatively little significance, since by the time of Talpade's alleged flights, unmanned aircraft, and manned gliders, had already flown: see History of aviation for more on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2022

The first plane was made by shivkar bapuji talpade not by wright brothers Insane aakash (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. DonFB (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Consensus for such a change will clearly not be forthcoming. Firstly, because it is hopelessly vague. Secondly because it cites no sources. And thirdly, because claims regarding supposed manned flights made by Shivkar Bapuji Talpade have been given no credibility whatsoever in reliable sources. Talpade's supporters have failed to provide anything remotely resembling credible evidence for such flights having occurred. Some sources have suggested that it is just about possible that Talpade built some sort of unmanned flying machine, but even if that could be proven to have occurred, it would be of relatively little significance, since by the time of Talpade's alleged flights, unmanned aircraft, and manned gliders, had already flown: see History of aviation for more on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

In "lawsuits begin"

The Wrights did no invent wing warming -- John Montgomery was using this technique a decade earlier. The aileron concept was not an attempt to circumvent patents, it was a legitimate development of Montgomery's concept, and in fact, the Wrights abandoned warping in favor of ailerons in later models of the Flyer. The lawsuits were found on the basis of the patent itself, not on any merits or lack of prior art. This section in the article should be made neutral, rather than implying any intent by Curtiss or others to evade.

Posted by: 38.70.200.196 July 27, 2021

I have belatedly responded by dropping a phrase from an uncited sentence in the section. DonFB (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wright_brothers/Archive_5&oldid=1200411607"