|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
sounds too much like a high school report. a bit gushy at times. the tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.188.8.131.52 17:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- is now widely acknowledged as the inventor of the science of aerodynamics
- his aeronautical work largely sank into obscurity.
aren't these a bit incongruous? he is "widely" regarded as the first aerodynamicist, but nobody today knows why (?). no engineer or scientist thinks like that. 184.108.40.206 17:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
according to the external link:
- However, Sir George Cayley's endeavors (including in areas other than aeronautics) have hardly been forgotten, for he is seen as, perhaps, the single most important aerial researcher and theoretician of his time.
220.127.116.11 00:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article says he invented all these things and that his work "fell into obscurity". This is correct. He did good scientific work, and published it, but it was fifty years before anybody followed it up. That is hardly his fault. What have you got against the bloke? User:GrahamN 24 Oct 2004
- I have nothing against Cayley, stop assuming that I do. Where did I say otherwise? I said that the article sounded contradictory. I didn't blame Cayley for anything. The article was confusing because it would at one point aknowledge the fame of his achievements, then say that that fame did not exist. I now understand that it was intended to mean he was not recognized widely at first, but today is. That was and is not clear in the article.
- Also, please tell me what was wrong with my sentence structure. What do you have against conciseness? And justify the frivolous anecdotes and immature tone which you seem to prefer in encyclopædic writing.
- For what I consider to be a good, well-written academic overview of Cayley's achievements, please read any one of J. Anderson's books on the relevant subjects. ✈ James C. 19:09, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
- P.S. note that in my quoting of an external link, I was attempting to prove Cayley's recognition and importance today. And I have something against the "bloke"?
Cousin or Nephew? It says both. Jooler 10:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Accoring to a magazine article I read but cannot cite since I didn't note the ref., his manned glider was not steerable and it flew 270 meters. This is about double the distance the german wik gives in its cynical article (allegd flight).
Fair use rationale for Image:Cayley Glider Replica Flown By Derek Piggott 2.jpg
Image:Cayley Glider Replica Flown By Derek Piggott 2.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 the boilerplate 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 ensure 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.
Power to weight ratio
I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cayley did calculations of the power-to-weight ratio of an engine needed for powered flight. He concluded that no engine then existing had the required ratio so he concentrated on gliders. True? Jagdfeld (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Could be - the only engines available at the time were steam engines, and they have a poor power-to-weigh ratio.
- He made several models that were powered by rubber bands in the same manner as 'rubber-powered' models available today. One was based on an 'A-frame' with twin pusher propellers at the rear, IIRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Removed sentence about first heavier than air flight because claims exist for earlier such flights/glides. The subject of "first" is quite controversial. See also these articles (which are referenced at end of Cayley article): List of early flying machines; First flying machine. DonFB (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
where they got the idea of that airfoil shape
I was thinking - how about grounding the article in terms of where they got the idea of that airfoil shape. I discovered that sailors have been talking about lift and that airfoil shape since Egypt ruled, it's really a basic principle of sailing. I think I'm going to copy this to the wiki reference on wing as well.
When I started looking into this I thought these guys like George Cayley were pretty esoteric thinkers to just sit there with Bernoulli's Equation in the 1700's and come up with the airfoil. If you look at it, he was just describing a long-known phenomenon in the lab. In fact I'm a little shocked at how long it took to develop the airplane wing, historically speaking. We've known this for a real long time. This may be obvious you folks on the coast, but it wasn't obvious to this land lubber.
Just a sentence in the intro like...
- The current format of the citations also make the text very hard to edit. I suggest that the quotations and the citations are separated and the citations are broken into short and long references. -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I think these long citations are a bad idea. If the material is significant to the topic, it should go in the main text. if it is not then a simple citation of the sources is enough. There is no rule that the content of the source should be rubbed in our faces. If there is a content dispute then it needs to be resolved here, not in the citation notes. Readers of the article should not be exposed to our dirty laundry. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)