Talk:History of aviation

I was so surprised that I didn't see a single reference in Wikipedia to Alexander F. Mozhaiski (1825-1890), Russian naval officer, aviation pioneer, researcher and inventor in the design of heavier-than-air-craft. This gentleman took his machine into the air 20 years or so earlier than the Wright brothers (I can translate the material from Russian and submit it, if Wikipedia creates a link for his name). Even though people say that the Russians simply want credit for the first flight, I say it is simply unfair not to at least mention Mozhaiski's outstanding achievements in aviation even if the tsarist Russia had been ignoring the guy for most of the time because of bureaucratical stupidity and narrow-mindedness. Mozhaiski even patented his invention, but international community never really cared about patents issued in Russia to its "local" inventors.

Welcome to the magic of wikipedia. I took the liberty of transforming your comment in an article about aleander. Take the time to edit and translate at will.--Alexandre Van de Sande 18:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I have to say I'm delighted to see Wikipedia dabbling in radical thoughts! 8) That, and not repeating the errors that "everyone knows", is the kind of thing a cyclopedia should do. WP needs to do that much more often. (I leanred a lot today. I'd thought the Wright's real contribution was control surfaces--powered flight was obvious and just a matter of time--but now I see Pearce was probably the most modern in that. Guess the Wrights were first in having a piccy taken.) Kwantus 04:05, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No they are arguable the first to achieve a controlled powered heavier-than-air flight and they were the first to photograph a controlled powered heavier-than-air flight, the first to fly more than a kilometer, the first to fly more than 1/2 hour (before Santos-Dumont got off the air) the first to carry passengers, the first to fly a woman, the first mass-produced aircraft, the first US military aircraft contractor, builder of the first plane to fly across the United States, etc. And Pearce's work had no influence on the development of aircraft even if his design are closer to modern ones -they were developed indepentently. Pearce chucked his work in a garbage heap after it failed and didn't publish it. Rmhermen 19:20, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

hehee. Well I'm not convinced Pearce failed except in publicity. I don't care if his methods had to be reinvented, as far can be found his methods were the more practical. (If the Wrights' control surfaces were truly their own, then that is to their credit of course, even if their method was wrong.) "First to fly more than a kilometer, the first to fly more than 1/2 hour" is just arbitrary quantification to make records - typifying the Mercan craving to claim firsts which is what's getting up my nose. "First to carry passengers" is an accomplishment but not an innovation - having a somhow nonobvious idea - same with putting an engine on a glider. (The propeller itself might count as innovative - and apparently the Wright's propeller was pretty good anyway.) "First to fly a woman" is just sexism. (It reminds me of NASA's attempt to make every flight a first in something. What was Bloom County's take - "first adenoidal mulatto touch-typist"? give it a rest.)

The Wrights had some firsts and good ideas and some not so good, and so did others. They should all be given their due - as best that antique due can be determined - without manufacturing or suppressing dues just so the You Assay! can have a bigger tally =p Kwantus 03:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Perhaps this article should be turned into a timeline format like on the History of rail transport article. It would certainly make it more readable.

• yes, and Milestones in Aviation already does that, and there is Incidents in Aviation also, these pages probably need to be integrated. ledgerbob 12:21, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And secondly why is there a accuracy dispute header. G-Man 00:09, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• See edit of 02:16, 18 Dec 2003. Andy Mabbett 00:22, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • That doesn't really explain it. what facts are disputed exactly G-Man 00:28, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

With regards to rockets, shouldn't it be mentioned that this is offically not part of aviation history anymore but a different subject? Andries 08:32, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Rockets and rocketry are a part of aviation, and therefore are a part of aviation history. Aviation history includes anything that flies through the air and is man-made, which includes helicopters, ornithopters, baloons, dirigibles, blimps, rockets and missiles.Theon 16:16, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

---

Quoting from article:

The best plane of the war is generally agreed to be the Sopwith Camel;

This is too bold of a statement to be considered true. If any plane deserves this honor it has to be the Fokker D.VII. -- Dissident (Talk)[[]] 04:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agree - any thing that asserts "best" should back it up with some facts or stick to less contentious language.Graham 06:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Since "Wright Brothers Flyer" outweighs "Wright Brothers Fligher" by about 10,000 : 2 (one of them this article) in Google, I'm assuming that Fligher was a misspelling and have corrected it. dramatic 06:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a safe bet. Graham 06:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wright brothers

I just had a little work Npoving this and some other aviation articles. Please do not overweight Wright briothers as the fathers of aviations. The best is tonot to name anyone this title, as one can see that the invention of the airplane was a long lines of great people, no matter wich natinatility, italian, german, englishman, americans and brazilian. Try to give everyone equal weight, as years of nationalistics fights have been fought over this subject. Wrights'were a small implementation of what otto did, and so was dumonts, to waht wright did, even if they haver never met.--Alexandre Van de Sande 17:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While you're right, I believe to NOT give the Wright's the credit they deserve is also not NPOV. I don't think the Wright's themselves ever claimed anything for themselves that they got from others, and gave credit where it was due; however, they were the first to both properly study aerodynamics in a self-constructed wind tunnel and apply the principles that they learned to their design - they were also the first to really consider the problems of control and designed an engine with adequate power to weight ratio. Sure, if they hadn't done this then it would only have been a matter of time before someone else did - after all, all the technology necessary came together at about that time. But the fact remains that they WERE the ones to put it all together, and also prudently photographed their flights as proof. It may be that others beat them to it, but didn't take care to record their results or to publish them in a timely fashion - sorry, that's how history works. I believe the article as it stands actually gives excessive space to many of the other heroic failures in this story at the expense of the Wright's - to me that reflects a certain wistful patriotism on behalf of those nations who coulda/woulda/shoulda managed the deed, but for whatever reason didn't quite make it. Get over it - the Wrights were the ones that history recognises for this achivement and rightly so. Graham 06:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not an American, in case you thought that - but I believe in credit where it's due. Graham 06:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First Known Flight

Armen Firman, a Moor, made a partially successful flight c. 850 ad (although that may be better viewed as a parachute jump). Ibn Firnas, another Moor, made a flight c. 875. William of Malmesbury records a flight of 1 furlong (220 yards) as being made by an Anglo-Saxon monk named Eilmer c. 1000ad.

These flights also mean that da Vinci was not the first to seriously design an aircraft.

Perhaps this article should be modified to include these points. I see no reason to discount Malmesbury's account but, sadly, I have no knowledge of the primary sources for Firman and firnas.