Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Changes by Roger

I have made some changes which seemed natural, for example in the section Witnesses I added the most obvious and natural entries in that section, the affidavits collected by Stella Randolph in the 1930s and the 30 persons CAHA sought up and inteviewed in the 1960s. It seemed very strange to include a few disputable witnesses in this section but omitting the two most obvious groups of witnesses we know of.

Please discuss changes of my edits here on the discussion page before you change or delete them. Roger491127 (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

I deleted the irrelevant statements about problems with Wright machines - this is an article about GW not about the flight characteristics of the Wright machines - and deleted subjective comments regarding Mrs. Whitehead. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed my subjective view of your statement regarding Mrs. Whitehead into just stating facts. Roger491127 (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Provide specific primary-source citations for the following, or these will be deleted:

"Louise Tuba Whitehead. Whitehead was very uninterested in her husbands aviation experiments, and she was fully occupied with taking care of the home, raising the children, and had to work outside the home to support the family economy. She said in an interview that she hated how Whitehead invested so much time and money into his aviation experiments." - give the name and date of the newspaper interview

"But the Sunday Post quoted Mrs. Whitehead saying her husband said "we went up" on August 14, 1901." - give the date of the Sunday Post

"But both O'Dwyer and Kosch investigated the journalist Dick Howell and read many of his articles and studied his drawings. They both found him to be a very truthful journalist and found that his drawings were very accurate." - specific source ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Number 1: The proper citation has been mentioned and used in the article many times, give me some time and I will dig it up again. The newspaper interview happened in 1940. Or it was part of the interview in which she also said "her husband said "we went up" on August 14, 1901". I guess DonFB inserted that sentence, ask him about the date of the Sunday Post.

Number 2: That sentence was not added by me. I don't use references which are named, note that the text ends with "" It was probably added by DonFB.

Number 3: Give me some time and I will add a proper reference, I know where to find them.

Obviously you have a very short memory, because all these statements and their references have been mentioned while you were present here. Roger491127 (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Beach's clash with Whitehead

from http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm/7

"Almost a year later, in his report on the second annual exhibit of the Aero Club of America (Scientific American, December 15, 1906), Beach wrote: 'The body framework of Gustave Whitehead's latest bat-like aeroplane was shown mounted on pneumatic tired, ball-bearing wire wheels….Whitehead also exhibited the 2-cylinder steam engine which revolved the road wheels of his former bat machine, with which he made a number of short flights in 1901.'

Why did Beach, an enthusiastic supporter of Whitehead who liberally credited Whitehead's powered flight successes of 1901, later become a Wright devotee? O'Dwyer offered some intriguing answers, all reflected by his research files, which state that in 1910 Whitehead refused to work any longer on Beach's flat-winged biplane. Angered, Beach broke with Whitehead and sent a mechanic to Whitehead's shop in Fairfield to disassemble the plane and take it to Beach's barn in Stratford. In later years (in O'Dwyer's words), 'Beach became a politician, rarely missing an opportunity to mingle with the Wright tide that had turned against Whitehead, notably after Whitehead's death in 1927.

'The significance of the foregoing can be appreciated by the fact that Beach's 1939 statement denouncing Whitehead (almost totally at odds with his earlier writings) was quoted by Orville Wright (as shown earlier). Far more important, however, was the Smithsonian's use of the Beach statement as a standard and oft-quoted source for answering queries about aviation's beginnings-because it said that Gustave Whitehead did not fly.'" Roger491127 (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Blueprints

There were no blueprints for the 1901/1902 machines. The earliest three-view I'm aware of, of the No. 21/22, dates from 1936. As far as I know, that drawing has not been published and was not used by those who made reproductions of the No. 21/22. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Okay, I should have used the word create instead of re-create, because we do not know for sure if Whitehead made any drawings, blueprints, before he built his airplanes, but it seems likely, because that is what engineers do before they build anything. First you sketch it up on paper, then you build it after that design on paper. Roger491127 (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

O'Dwyer and Kosch about Howell

from http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm/5

"O'Dwyer, curious about Howell, spent hours in the Bridgeport Library studying virtually everything Howell wrote. 'Howell was always a very serious writer,' O'Dwyer said. 'He always used sketches rather than photographs with his features on inventions. He was highly regarded by his peers on other local newspapers. He used the florid style of the day, but was not one to exaggerate. Howell later became the Herald's editor.'" Roger491127 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It was easy to find the reference to O'Dwyer's investigation of Howell, because I knew where I had seen it. It will take a little longer to find the reference to Kosch's investigation of Howell, but I will find it, sooner or later, I read it less than a week ago.Roger491127 (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

from http://www.territorioscuola.com/wikipedia/en.wikipedia.php?title=Talk:Gustave_Whitehead

"If you look at the reputation of the editor of the Bridgeport Herald in those days, you find that he was a reputable man," Kosch said. "He wouldn't make this stuff up.""

Obviously we have written about Kosch's judgement about Howell here in the discussion page earlier. Do you accept the quote or do I have to go through all archives to find it and the reference for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger49112 (talk • contribs)

I would listen to any argument based on a quote that has uncited provenance, while keeping questions of the provenance out of way of discussion. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Roger, the point of having citations is not to please ourselves but to offer them to the readers of the article. So, yes we need citations. For discussion we can just trust... but not to include uncited quotations in the article. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Okay, I will continue to search for the reference to the statement from Kosch about Howell. Roger491127 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Found the ref for Kosch's statement: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Anniversary-of-disputed-1st-flight-takes-wing-in-615968.php (Roger391127)

Louise Whitehead interview

"In a 1940 interview with reporter Michael D'Andrea of the Bridgeport Sunday Post, Louise Whitehead said her husband was always busy with motors and planes when he wasn't working in coal yards or factories to earn money for his aeronautical efforts. "I hated to see him put so much time and money into that work," she said.

Mrs. Whitehead said her husband's first words upon returning home from Fairfield on August 14, 1901, were an excited, "Mama, we went up!"" Roger491127 (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have searched for this interview on the web in several different ways but found nothing but references to wikipedia, so I can only assume it originates from one of the books about Whitehead, which I have no possibility to access from here in Sweden. Roger491127 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith dishes the dirt

Aviation historian Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith wrote in 1960 that Whitehead could not have flown, that he was incapable of solving the complex problems involved. He noted that Whitehead's supporters were more interested in discrediting the Wright Brothers than establishing facts. "The whole deplorable story is told in the notes (on pages 1165–1167) to The Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright (in two volumes, New York, 1953) which were prepared by the Aeronautics Division of the Library of Congress."

• Gibbs-Smith, Charles Harvard (1960). The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. pp. 207–208.

Gibbs-Smith destroys the Whitehead claim. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think you can deny over 25 witness affidavits, an eyewitness article by a journalist, and successful flights of several replicas with some theoretical mumbo-jumbo by a single author? Roger491127 (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that the Whitehead section is still a lot shorter than the Wright brothers section. Do you think there is far too much detail in that section too? You also say that the issue is in dispute. Yes, of course it is, because we all learned in school that the Wright brothers invented the airplane in 1903. But after studying the issue for two years I, and many others, think that this "truth" is in dispute. So I suggest we let the reader know enough to make up his own mind on this issue. Simply deleting the side you do not agree with is not a civilized way of handling historic issues.

Millions of people think that the Wright brothers invented the airplane in 1903, but millions of people think that Whitehead flew years before the Wright brothers. This controversy has even involved the politicians in Connecticut and North Carolina. This is not a dispute you simply can delete away. As I said before: let the reader know enough about both sides to make up his own mind on this issue. Simply deleting the side you do not agree with is not a civilized way of handling historic issues. Roger491127 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith's rather brilliant analysis and critique of the claims made re: Whitehead should be included here in some fashion. I invite Binksternet to have a go at it. I'll add a few things, also, after Binksternet has highlighted Gibbs-Smith in the GW article. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

When Gibbs-Smith, a giant in his field, knighted for his expertise in early aviation history, says that Whitehead did not fly, his conclusion carries a great deal of weight. Once this situation is reached, where there is a dispute over basic facts, the biography article can no longer say that one version is true. The only choice is to say that the facts are in dispute, and to name the adherents of each version. For the lead section, I would not characterize the dispute as "vigorous debate" after it is so severely pooh-poohed by Gibbs-Smith. In other articles such as ones about aviation history, the dispute can only be covered briefly if at all. When I get a chance, I will type out in full all the words that Gibbs-Smith put in his 1960 book about Whitehead: not a whole lot. He's pretty dismissive—he wrote that no reputable aviation historian [in 1960] considers Whitehead's flight anything but a myth. After I get the words down, we can see how to bring the ideas into the article. I hope to get this done by mid-October when the local university library expects the book back. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet, that will be great, thank you. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In 1960 most "reputable aviation historians" were not even aware of that Whitehead existed. A lack of knowledge is not a good reason to deny the existence of something which was later discovered. Before 1960 nobody knew that the moon had a backside, that is no reason to deny today that it exists. Roger491127 (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, Stella Randolph's 1937 book on Whitehead, the remarks found in 1953's The Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright (cited by Binksternet, above) and Orville Wright's 1945 dismissal of Whitehead were all very well known to aviation historians. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But all the work made by Kosch and O'Dwyer and the work by very reputable experts from NASA, Boeing, etc.. to recreate blueprints of Whitehead's airplane and the construction of flying replicas had not even begun in 1960. A lot of work by CAHA to track down 30 possible witnesses, of which 20 said they had witnessed Whitehead fly, 8 had heard of the flights, had not started in 1960. More than half of the work to investigate Whitehead happened after 1960. The work Major O'Dwyer did which showed that the basis for Orville Wright's 1945 dismissal of Whitehead was faulty had not been done in 1960. Roger491127 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

They recreated blueprints, so those new blueprints are suspect. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

From the Gibbs-Smith book

• Gibbs-Smith, Charles Harvard (1960). The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. pp. 207–208.

   "One of the most curious claims to the first powered flights is sometimes made for an American named Gustave Whitehead, who is said to have made a number of flights starting in 1901, and including one of 7 miles over Long Island Sound in 1902. The claims are advanced in a book entitled The Last Flights of Gustave Whitehead, by Stella Randolph (Washington, D.C., 1937). Suffice it to say that no reputable American—or other—aeronautical historian now accepts the Whitehead story as being anything more than a myth. Whitehead himself was an enthusiastic inventor, visionary and eccentric, but incapable of solving the complex problems involved, especially that of a suitable engine. His chief aircraft, which was photographed, shows a boat-like fuselage for the pilot and the engine (driving two tractor propellers on outriggers), wings derived from Lilienthal, and a bird-type 'spreading' tail-surface with no rudder.

   "Unfortunately, some of those who advanced his claims were more intent on discrediting the Wright brothers than on establishing facts. The whole deplorable story is told in the notes (on pages 1165–1167) to The Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright (in two volumes, New York, 1953) which were prepared by the Aeronautics Division of the Library of Congress. Orville Wright himself also dealt with the Whitehead claims in a brief article in the magazine U.S. Air Services (August 1945), which reads as follows:"

   'The myth of Gustave Whitehead having made a power flight in 1901 was founded upon the story which appeared in the Bridgeport Herald of August 18, 1901. Although this mythical flight was alleged to have taken place on August 14th, and to have been witnessed by a Herald reporter, the news was withheld four days and appeared as a feature story in a Sunday edition of that paper! Would the editor of the Herald have held back for four days a story of such great human and historical interest, if he believed it to be true? The strangest part of all is that anyone should think that Howell's story was intended to be taken as fact. It was printed with a large heading entitled "Flying", illustrated with witches riding astraddle their brooms.

   'The Herald represented that just four persons were present on the occasion—"Gustave Whitehead, Andrew Cellie and James Dickie, his two partners in the flying machine, and a representative of the Herald."

   'In an affidavit dated April 2, 1937, the above-mentioned James Dickie, after saying that he had worked with Gustave Whitehead when Whitehead was constructing and experimenting with airplanes, said:

   '"I do not know Andrew Cellie, the other man who is supposed to have witnessed the flight of August 14th, 1901, described in the Bridgeport Herald. I believe the entire story in the Herald was imaginary, and grew out of the comments of Whitehead in discussing what he hoped to get from his plane. I was not present and did not witness any airplane flight on August 14, 1901. I do not remember or recall ever hearing of a flight with this particular plane or any other that Whitehead ever built."

   'John J. Dvorak, a Chicago business man, who in 1904 was on the teaching staff of Washington University of St. Louis, spent some months that year with Whitehead at Bridgeport, while Whitehead was building a motor financed by Dvorak. Dvorak finally came to the conclusion that Whitehead was incapable of building a satisfactory motor and in disgust he left. In an affidavit dated July 18, 1936, Dvorak said:

   '"I personally do not believe that Whitehead ever succeeded in making any airplane flights. Here are my reasons: 1. Whitehead did not possess sufficient mechanical skill and equipment to build a successful motor. 2. Whitehead was given to gross exaggeration. He was eccentric—a visionary and a dreamer to such an extent that he actually believed what he merely imagined. He had delusions."

   'In May, 1901, Stanley Y. Beach visited Whitehead at Bridgeport and wrote an illustrated article about Whitehead's machine, which was published in the Scientific American of June 8, 1901. Later he induced his father to advance money to continue Whitehead's experiments. Although Beach saw Whitehead frequently in the years from 1901 to 1910, Whitehead never told him that he had flown. Beach has said that he does not believe that any of Whitehead's machines ever left the ground under their own power, in spite of assertions of persons thirty-five years later who thought they remembered seeing them. Beach's nine years' association with Whitehead placed him in a better position to know what Whitehead had done than that of other persons who were associated with Whitehead but a short time, or those who had so little technical training, or so little interest that they remained silent for thirty-five years about an event which, if true, would have been the greatest historic achievement in aviation up to that time. If Whitehead really had flown, certainly Beach, who had spent nearly ten thousand dollars on the experiments, would have been the last to deny it.'"

Note that this entry about Whitehead falls in a section entitled "Claims to the First Powered Flight", and takes up 1.5 pages of a book spanning many centuries of failed and successful flights, a book of 340 some pages. In the "Claims" section, Gibbs-Smith writes more text on Clement Ader, less text on Sir Hiram Maxim, and a whole lot on Preston A. Watson.

Regarding the Whitehead story, Gibbs-Smith quotes Orville Wright who in turn quotes both Dickie and Dvorak. Beach's father's $10k is mentioned—just for comparison, back in 1905, $10,000 was worth $339,000 in today's American dollars. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Whitehead, a very busy woman

From: http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm/9

"Whitehead's efforts to solve the problems of flight took their toll on the family budget. Louise Whitehead had to work to help meet expenses. But the couple was able to buy land on Tunis Hill, where, with the help of their son Charles, Whitehead built two homes, in 1903 and in 1912. The two houses still stand. He also planted a large orchard from which he sold fruit, and kept a cow and chickens to help with the family's food supply."

As Gustave Whitehead used all his time to his aviation experiments Mrs. Whitehead had to take care of the home, their children, work outside the home to support the family economy, take care of the plucking and selling fruit, take care of the cow and the chickens, so how could she witness any flights? She also hated her husband's great investment of time and money in the aviation experiments, so her motivation in witnessing any flights was obviously nil. Roger491127 (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope this explains why I consider your statement "Perhaps the last word in the matter should be left to Gustave Whitehead's wife, Louise Tuba Whitehead, who never recalled seeing her husband fly in his flying machines." one of the most irrational and outrageously confused statements ever made in the history of mankind. Roger491127 (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Roger, after your many insults and hostility, it matters very little to me what you think of my statements. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

The problem is not that you feel insulted, because that is a natural feeling among uneducated people when being criticised. The problem is that you seem to have no ability to understand rational arguments and either reply with counter-arguments or admit that your statement is wrong. Didn't you learn to debate and think clearly in school, didn't you learn how to be rational and understand what is reasonable and logical? How can you think that "Perhaps the last word in the matter should be left to Gustave Whitehead's wife, Louise Tuba Whitehead, who never recalled seeing her husband fly in his flying machines." is a sound argument when you know how uninterested Mrs. Whitehead was in aviation, and you know how busy she was with a lot of work, at home and outside the home? It is a mystery to me how you can think that she should have the final word about if he flew or not, when there were 25-45 other people who knew a lot more than her about his experiments in aviation and his flights. It is like saying that Dalai Lama should have the last word on if quantum physics computers will be a success after our possibilities of computers based on electronics come to an end because we are reaching the limit size-wise of traditional transistors. Dalai Lama is a nice and funny person, but he has no qualifications at all when it comes to quantum physics. Roger491127 (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is like saying that my mother should have the last word on if mechanical relays are better than electronic solid state relays. My father was an electrician and worked with relays and controlled a whole factory and he could have answered that question, but my mother stayed at home all the time, fully occupied with keeping the home clean, washing dishes, washing clothes for the whole family, washing mats and keeping the floors clean, making food for the family, carrying water and wood for our stove which kept the house warm, and she had no qualifications at all in the field of electricity and electronics. She never followed him to his work and witnessed what he did and how important he was in keeping that factory running. A lot of other people knew such things about my father, but not my mother. Roger491127 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

So, it seems as though you, Roger, know all of this about what Mrs. Whitehead thought and what she was interested in and how she viewed her husband's aeronautical work based on comments of people posted on the internet who might or might not have read the original interview coupled with interpretations and speculation about the interview that they might or might not have read.

You apparently cannot cite the date that the interview you base your comments on was published, so the impression is left that you haven't read it. You're also, apparently, unaware that there was more than one interview of Mrs. Whitehead. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

You are getting hanged up on details, if I could could tell you the date you would continue to ask what page it was on, if I could answer that you would continue and ask what font was used in the article, etc...

Can't you use a little common sense, or rationality or show some signs of reason? Do wives today usually follow their husbands to work and witness what they do? No, they don't, they are usually occupied with raising children, washing dishes, washing clothes, keeping the home clean, etc... And it was even more so a hundred years ago. And in this specific case we know that Mrs. Whitehead hated his work in aviation because it took so much time and resources from the family, and she was very busy because she had to do everything at home which her husband had no time for. Taking care of a cow, chickens, a fruit garden, children, and on top of all that she had to work outside the home. How in the world could she have had time to watch him fly? And remember that she very much disliked his aviation activities. So how in the world can you come up with the idea to let Mrs. Whitehead have the last word on the issue if he flew or not? Roger491127 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if we didn't have that interview and we didn't know anything about Mrs. Whitehead other than that she had at least one child to take care of, if we assume the married couple Whiteheads were just like average married couples a hundred and nine years ago, it would still be a very strange idea to let the wife have the last word on what her husband achieved at his work or in his workshop. Roger491127 (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

All you need to do is find the name of the newspaper, and the date that the interview of Mrs. Whitehead was published - the newspaper's name and the date of publication. I am assuming you won't make it up. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

You know I live in Sweden, and I can do research in swedish newspapers, via our public library system, but I can not do any research of newspapers in USA. Why don't you answer the question about some common sense above about how much wives 109 years ago knew about their husbands's achievements in their workplaces, and more specifically how you can make such an illogical statement about letting Mrs. Whitehead have the last word on the issue of if her husband really flew or not, when 30-45 other people knew a lot more about his flying activities than her? Roger491127 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Roger, no, I will not change what I've written. I believe most people can understand the point I am making, even if it irritates you. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Aeronautical Club of Boston and manufacturer Horsman

From: http://www.aviationexplorer.com/aviation_history.html The Aeronautical Club of Boston and manufacturer Horsman in New York hired Whitehead as a specialist for hang gliders, aircraft models, kites and motors for flying craft. Whitehead flew short distances in his glider. Roger491127 (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Much and perhaps most of the text in this "source" is copied from Wikipedia. For example, this "history" article includes the text, "This date precedes the Wright brothers' Kitty Hawk, North Carolina flight by more than two years," which I wrote myself more than a year ago in Wikipedia. Thus, this "history" article cannot be considered a valid source for Wikipedia, since most of it is derived from Wikipedia. DonFB (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Except for the text you added the rest of the text must have come from a source somewhere outside wikipedia, so I suggest you remove the text you added and let the rest stand while we try to find where that text came from. I would guess it came from one of the books about Whitehead. I don't think somebody has just come up with that text out of thin air. That text has been in this article for many years. Roger491127 (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The "history" article is loaded with text that I recognize from various Wikipedia articles, not just my own writing. I suggest you remember this not a valid source and don't reference anything to it again; it will be deleted. DonFB (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

---

DonFB, my username isn't appearing after my posts, only an IP shows. I haven't changed anything - do you have any suggestions ? 76.93.40.250 (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Are you still typing four tildes ~~~~ after each post? Also, click the Preferences tab (top of page), then look under Signature. Make sure your sig is filled in, and make sure the box is UNchecked that says "Treat the above as wiki markup." DonFB (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, are you still logged in? That could also cause the prob. DonFB (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks, I was logged out. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Witnesses

I reinserted the biggest group of witnesses, the 20 direct eyewitnesses and 8 hearsay witnesses out of 30 interviewed by CAHA in the 1960s. Reason: The main evidence we have for Whitehead's flights are the witnesses and it would be very irresponsible to leave out the biggest group of witnesses from the Witnesses section.Roger491127 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note also the statistical significance (statistical significance is a scientific term) in these numbers. When you search up and interview 30 people who lived in Bridgeport in 1901 and are still alive and possible to find in 1965, and find that 20 of them say they had seen Whitehead fly and 8 of them say they had heard that he flew, that is a statistically remarkable, or even, statistically seen, a sensational, result. Roger491127 (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It is only statistically significant in relation to a finding that can be attached to the results. One might say that the witnesses were observed to be significantly biased, or significantly faulty in their memories. The truthfulness of the witnesses is not part of whatever statistical significance you have described. Binksternet (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

After reading your words above it feels like my understanding of the english language and the science of statistics just dropped to a few percent of what it was before I read what you just wrote. Do you mean that we should delete 99%, or 100%, of the content of wikipedia because the truthfulness of the verified sources cannot be proven? Roger491127 (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the whole content of wikipedia has been produced by a single 13 year old hacker who has written all the articles and made all the images in a painting program and has used millions of sock puppets identities to upload the whole shebang to wikipedia, so it is all false and should be deleted because we cannot prove with absolute confidence that it is not so? Roger491127 (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DonFB deleted this text from section witnesses because it was already included, in the section O'Dwyer and the Smithsonian. I moved the text to section Witnesses since that text has nothing to do with O'Dwyer and the Smithsonian. It is definitely more suitably placed in the section Witnesses. Roger491127 (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved the Witnesses section to a position earlier in the article, considering its importance. We basically have only the witnesses and Whitehead's own letters to magazines and Dick Howell's article as evidence of what he achieved. The rest of this article is about controverses and conflicts between different people and institutions, which is of less importance to the casual reader who maybe reads only the first half of the article.The casual reader probably does not have time and energy to get involved in the discussions, conflicts and controverses in the second half of the article.Roger491127 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Article organization

A series of edits by User:Roger491127 have regrettably made the organization of this article much less logical and usable. A great many unrelated sections have been illogically lumped under Later Career, a section meant to give a brief summary of GW's....later career. Also User:Roger491127 apparently does not understand the hierarchical logic of making References a main heading, under which Notes (footnotes), Books, and External Links should be included as subsections. I will be restoring a logical arrangement of the article's sections and subsections. Comments welcome. DonFB (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Witnesses section was not "lumped under Later Career", I made the Witnesses section follow after all his career sections. I also made all section titles uniform, with the same bold font, which should have been done by the first person who used 3 = to change a section title into bold font. I can understand your idea that "References a main heading, under which Notes (footnotes), Books, and External Links should be included as subsections." but then other parts of the article should be organized in the same way, like his career being a main heading and the parts of his career being subsections, the controverses title being a main heading and all controverses sections being subsections. But I didn't see any such logic applied, I only saw that a few section titles were in not bold while all other sections were in bold font. For example: the section about Mrs. Whitehead was in bold font although it was in the middle of all other controverses sections.Roger491127 (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Roger491127 (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the article as it is right now and it seems somebody has made a mistake, the main sections titles are now in not bold, while the subsections are in bold font. A bold font is much more visible and dominating than the not bold font, so shouldn't it be the other way around, the main sections should be in bold font while the subsections should be in not bold font? But wait a minute, I will try other browsers, maybe the not bold text is larger or something. ....Okay, in some Browsers the main section titles are in a slightly bigger font, but the bold titles of subsections are still more visible and impressive. If main section titles should be more prominent they should be both bigger and in bold font, as it is now the reader gets the impression that subtitles are more important than main titles. And if they have set their browsers to use a uniform font size, like I have, it looks totally wrong that subsections are in bold while main titles are the same size but not in bold. But I guess that is a problem with the whole wikipedia, not something we can fix in this article. Roger491127 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

---

DonFB, I support restoring the logical arrangement of sections and subsections, thank you. I also notice that the language of the section about the 18 August 1901 article and drawing(s) has changed to argue on behalf of the claim that they were the work of Richard Howell. The section needs conditional language, saying that Stella Randolph and O'Dwyer and whomever else believes that is true, but that it is not certain. I'll review the article at length later today. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Ok, look forward to your review. We might have a bit of a difference of opinion on how to word this. In a previous version, you had written "but that is not certain". In effect, that's a conclusion by an omniscient Wikipedia. I think to make such an explicit and unconditional statement would need backup---a good source who makes that statement. Right now, the article states the facts: he is widely accepted (practically every source does name him), no byline on the article, and Stella connected him to the article (which I don't know myself, but accept your sourced statement about it). I'm sure we'll find an appropriate way to express the matter. DonFB (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Herald article authorship

There must be some way to state this so the advocacy (as I see it) is muted and an honest statement is made. By assigning a name to an article (which is not bylined) and a drawing (which is not signed) it enhances the credibility of the 18 August 1901 article, and that is likely why Howell was attached to them. I have looked extensively but I cannot find any indication that Howell ever claimed the two. I think (beyond Wikipedia) that fact alone might make one wonder about the article itself.

By having the drawing attached to Howell without anything beyond a single assertion by Randolph (subsequently repeated by O'Dwyer and others), it implies the drawing is done by an eyewitness. The situation is akin to "monkeyphone" where one person whispers something to another who passes it on and then, after a few repetitions, the original is compared to what the last person heard. I am happy to have it said that most (even more than most) people believe the article and drawing were by Howell, but that should be balanced by some caution. We'll come up with a good formulation, I'm sure.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll offer a first draft of how the Article and Drawing section might be revised:

The Herald article and drawing

The writer of the Whitehead article in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald of August 18, 1901 is widely believed to have been sports editor Richard Howell, but no byline appeared on the article. In 1937 Stella Randolph stated in her first book that the author of the article was Richard Howell, but she did not give the basis for her assumption. No record is known of Howell ever claiming credit for the article or the article's drawing of the No. 21 aloft. Howell died before the revival of interest in Whitehead.

O'Dwyer, in an article in Aviation History, said, without stating his source, that Howell was "an artist before he became a reporter." [20] The same article said, "O'Dwyer, curious about Howell, spent hours in the Bridgeport Library studying virtually everything Howell wrote. 'Howell was always a very serious writer,' O'Dwyer said. 'He always used sketches rather than photographs with his features on inventions. He was highly regarded by his peers on other local newspapers. He used the florid style of the day, but was not one to exaggerate. Howell later became the Herald's editor.'"[35]

Kosch assumed, without stating a source, that the author was Howell, and said, "If you look at the reputation of the editor of the Bridgeport Herald in those days, you find that he was a reputable man. He wouldn't make this stuff up."[36]

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a few tweaks:

(be sure to look at the rendered text, so my substitutions will be clearer)

"did not give the basis for her assumption that assertion"

"Kosch assumed said, without stating a source"

"No record is known has come to light of Howell ever claiming credit"

Rather than us assuming that Randolph/Kosch assumed, we can say more neutrally what they "said" or "asserted" about Howell.

Rather than no record "is known" (maybe somebody does know), we can say "has come to light" or possibly, "has been made public". DonFB (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

DonFB, this looks good to me. That would take care of my concerns, thanks (thank also for the "assuming that Randolph/Kosch assumed" phrase - terrific).

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Talk page practices

Editors, please indent your talk page entries so that the flow of the thread can be more easily followed by others. Do no use the series of hyphens to separate your comments, follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines which describes good practices such as indentation and signing with four tildes. The series of hyphens separation style some editors have adopted was perhaps okay for the case where two editors were involved, but many editors are. Thank you, all. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Article layout redux

The current article layout does not satisfy the need to describe Whitehead first and foremost in terms that both sides of the dispute agree about. Instead, it describes Whitehead as having flown, in this, that or the other event, then brings up a Controversy section as rebuttal. I think a better way to deliver the information would be to describe Whitehead in a way all parties agree about, then describe each supposed flight with its particular adherents stating their case followed by its critics stating theirs. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific? Perhaps show a very abbreviated "outline" of what you prefer? What elements should be brought together (things that "all parties agree about") that are currently separated? DonFB (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Objective

Roger, please state what your objective is with respect to this Gustave Whitehead article - what do you want to see result from your participation as an editor ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Carroll F. Gray, please quote a source for your idea, and quote the source of that source, otherwise we must assume that your assumption is put in question so we must find a way to formulate your idea in a manner which clearly states that it is a questionable statement which was made without mentioning a source. Has anybody actually confirmed and stated a source for the idea that the text above this comment really was written by Carroll F. Gray? Otherwise we must obviously clearly state that this comment cannot be referenced to Carroll F. Gray. We will have to state clearly that no evidence shows that it was actually written by Carroll F. Gray, so we have to clearly state that this was an assumption that the text above was written by by Carroll F. Gray without stating a source, etc... Roger491127 (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with your mockery, Roger. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you call that mockery? I was only imitating your way of debating. The only difference is that you are constantly trying to get such ways of expressing yourself included in the article. I was only showing you on the discussion page what it feels like to discuss with you. This whole article will become a mockery if your suggestions are inserted in the article. Roger491127 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, please make the effort to control yourself. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Reproductions

I inserted this very important text at the beginning of the section which maybe should be called Replicas instead:

"Today only a series of photographs of the aircraft N21 exists, fortunately enough clear , as well as some sketches. In addition there are also some testimonies of people who witnessed his exploits. Most interesting are those given by Weisskopf’s assistant, who had been interviewed on the purpose of history before he died. On these bases, with a patient and laborious engagement of several persons specialised in several fields, the reconstruction of the design drawings of his aircraft has been carried . A considerable contribution in this result has been supplied by Herb Kelly, an aeronautical engineer who, resuming a technical photographic methodology developed for the Pentagon (geometric method of fading angles) during the second world war, allows to analyse photographs for graphically obtaining synthetic images which can be further transformed into designs perspective. Developments deriving from such technique have been profitably carried out by means of the digital technologies and are today very popular also in the environment of automobiles crash analysis and of aircraft flight tests.

The initiative, conducted in tight collaboration with the Committee of Leutershausen, had been undertaken by a group of American technicians of several companies like Boeings, Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed. These constituted a group called " Hangar 21 "and in 1986 constructed a basic replica of N.21 which was presented at Oshkosh; they carried out only some leaps on the runway, but their work gave encouragement to the German committee to construct a more faithful replica . Without the technical contribution of this qualified group of specialists, very unlikely the faithful reconstruction of the aircraft would have been possible. The specialists experiences ranged from V2 to the nuclear submarines nevertheless they have been evidently fascinated by the romantic attraction of this adventure."[29]

This text is properly referenced and very important because it shows what a dream team of experts it was that created the new blueprints of nr21 and what techniques they used to achieve that goal. This text is more than essential in this section, it is absolutely necessary. The evidence value of flying replicas is totally dependent on how the blueprints were constructed. Roger491127 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The proper and widely accepted usage of "Replica" and "Reproduction" with respect to aircraft is: a Replica is built by the same person or people or company as the original, while a Reproduction is built by a company or person or people other than those who built the original. I notice that the text you offer, Roger, does not mention making use of the three-view of the No.21 drawn in the 1930's. If used, the above text which Roger cites can and should be worded more economically. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why Howell Matters

To promote discussion, I'll explain my thinking on this matter of Richard Howell being the author of the 18 August 1901 Sunday Herald article. Since nothing has come to light indicating that Richard Howell ever claimed the article (or the drawing) as his own, it is an assumption. Randolph and O'Dwyer don't offer substantiation of their attributions. The reason this is important, I believe, is that Howell was a respected member of the press in Bridgeport, and had a responsible position as Editor. To assume that he wrote and illustrated the article lends credence to the article and drawing beyond what the article and drawing themselves inherently have. Assuming Howell was the source makes the article more believable, yet, was he the source ? So, to remain strictly neutral about the 18 August 1901 article, we should not spread that unfounded (as of now) assumption that he was. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This raises an interesting point I hadn't thought about before, namely: If Howell was as respected as some sources say he was, an article such as this could call into question his credibility and hurt his reputation. So that leaves room for people to speculate that he would not have written such a thing, or that if he did, he may have deliberately kept his name off the article (and drawing) to protect his reputation. As much as it's fun to talk about this stuff, we'll certainly never be able to make a determination, and all that matters in terms of this article is what the sources say....or don't say. It's our job, naturally, to present what the sources say/don't say as neutrally as possible. But, as editors, we're not going to decide the issue. DonFB (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, yes, that was what I had in mind. Had he written it and then shied away from ownership of it that would be very meaningful to know - but is probably unknowable at this late date, and, besides, not fit work for Wiki editors, in any event. If we appear to accept that Howell was the author and artist then we're, in effect, taking sides and supporting the pro-Whitehead position. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting formulation that would not have occurred to me. Until you pointed out the lack of byline and the Stella/O'Dwyer attribution to Howell, I never gave the authorship a 2nd thought. But neither did I think the article was leaning pro-Whitehead because the text credited Howell unquestioningly as the writer. He was just a name. So you seem to be saying that because he was, in fact, so reputable and credible, the simple fact of his authorship would weigh heavily in favor of Whitehead. DonFB (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, which is why it is so important, it seems to me, to consider precisely what the sources say - if we're to remain neutral. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Harworth claim about Wrights

I've lost track, but is there a source that says Harworth claimed the Wrights visited GW? If so, article should say something like:

"XYZ claimed/reported/said that Harworth said the WB visited GW, but there is no such statement by Harworth in his 1934 affidavit." Perhaps with a footnote if the source is a person/book/publication not already mentioned in the article.

That would be better than the indeterminate (unattributed) phrasing: "...said to have claimed..." In closely watched articles, you will sometimes see an inline request for attribution ("...said to have claimed..."). If you click the "by whom" link just above, it will go to a very informative guideline page about such matters of style. DonFB (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I re-read the affidavits and read through the sections in all three books (1937 and 1966 Randolph and 1978 O'Dwyer/Randolph) and it simply isn't there. I left the assertion that he did say so, but wanted it to be clear that Harworth didn't say it in his affidavit. Also, I cannot find any source which says he did say so. If you google "harworth wright visit" you'll find one entry in the UnMuseum (www.unmuseum.org/gustave.htm) but the article there doesn't mention that Harworth said the Wright's visited.

I can't find a source which makes that claim, and I made a good faith effort to find one. I added the - thanks for the guideline page, too. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that---for a few days at most. I was composing the following when you added the tag:

How about just deleting it? If some other editor comes along with a good source, they can put the statement back in. Until then, doesn't seem appropriate for article to include it.

Anyway, a few more days with no source, and zap! DonFB (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I found it:

http://www.gustavewhitehead.org/news_journalism/1988_-_did_whitehead_fly.html

In the paragraph starting:

"Both Cecil Steeves and Junius Harworth"

It's in the Air Enthusiast article by George K. Weissenborn reproduced on the GW (Megan) site. Article can attribute it accordingly, while noting Harworth makes no comment about WB in his affidavit. DonFB (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I had read it somewhere. But why note in the article that "while noting Harworth makes no comment about WB in his affidavit" He was not asked about that when he wrote the affidavit, so such a note is only a way to make his statement sound suspicious in a sneaky manner.Roger491127 (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You've been editing for years. Now would be a good time, as recently advised by Binksternet, to learn how to indent your Talk comments, a rudimentary skill usually acquired by editors within a few days. I did it for you this time. I will not, however, change your diapers.

Who says Harworth "was not asked about that"?

What would be a good reason for this article to take the trouble to repeat the Air Enthusiast comment about Harworth, but deliberately avoid mentioning that another source, Harworth's own affidavit, does not confirm what Air Enthusiast said about him, while at the same time this article depends on comments in affidavits by other interviewees who are the only source for claims about the WB? DonFB (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Air Enthusiast article is the only place I now know of where Harworth is mentioned regarding the supposed Wright visit. If you can find Harworth saying that, Roger, please cite the specifics. Also, the language of the Air Enthusiast is very guarded - "Both Cecil Steeves and Junius Harworth remember the Wrights" does not say Harworth said the Wrights visited. Since there is this one source I am fine with mentioning it, but we shouldn't leave the reader with the impression Harworth said the Wrights visited Whitehead, when we cannot find his statement. Nothing "sneaky" about it. Also, please note that Mr. Weissenborn spells his first name "Georg" -without the final "e." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think Steeves and Harworth traveled and visited the Wrights, or maybe they met the Wrights on a street in Boston? Very unlikely that they saw the Wrights anywhere else than in Bridgeport, because they were of very different age and they hardly traveled outside Bridgeport together. Roger491127 (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, why would Howell ever confirm that he was the writer and artist who wrote the article about Whitehead? Everybody who read that newspaper knew it, he knew it, the whole staff of the newspaper knew it, his excellent articles was the reason why he later became the chief editor of Bridgeport Sunday Herald, nobody ever questioned that he was the author for 109 years until Carroll Gray came up with the idea to question it. And it is such a strange idea to come up with. If somebody else had written that article and made the drawing, wouldn't Howell have noticed it and done and said something about it? Wouldn't Major O'Dwyer who studied all articles and drawing made by Howell have noticed some difference in style and said something about it? Roger491127 (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Who says Harworth "was not asked about that"? DonFB (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I do, if he had been asked about that, of course he would have have confirmed or denied it, but the affidavit was about something else. You cannot assume that everybody mentions everything they know every time they make a statement. Note that Harworth did not mention which school he attended, he did not mention what he did July 4 the same year, he did not mention the names of his father and mother, etc... Roger491127 (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet, DonFB and Gray, remember to write everything you know everytime you write something here, like when were you born, how much money do you have in the bank, what are the names of your fathers and mothers and the names of your grandmas and grandpas and where they were born, and what you did May 12 1986, etc.. If you demand of Harworth to say or write everything he knew everytime he said or wrote something you should do the same, of course. Roger491127 (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This might be a good time for you to list your other unsourced assumptions, speculations, deductions, conclusions, conjectures, theories, inferences, presumptions, hypotheses, pronouncements, suppositions, preconceptions, and guesses about this article's subject matter. Take as much space as you need.

I notice you failed to give a reason for this article to mention the Air Enthusiast claim about Harworth seeing the WB, but should deliberately exclude noting Harworth's silence in his affidavit about the WB. No need to answer. I don't actually care what you think about that.

And don't break others' comments with your text. Put it below. You've been told that before.

Keep on posting. I admit I find it perversely entertaining. Like gawking at a car crash. DonFB (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, in addition to probably violating some standard of behavior, your flip comment about Harworth misses a key point (again) - the issue is not what Harworth did on the 4th of July or some other silly matter, it is about whether or not Wilbur and Orville Wright visited GW and supposedly made off with the "secrets" of GW's inventions - heavyweight material in this context - so please take it seriously. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Good natured

I don't think the issue is entirely clear-cut. In looking through the resolution again, I see repeated statements made in rather forceful language that North Carolina lawmakers strenuously disagree with the Connecticut proclamation. On the other hand, I don't think the dispute amounts to a blood feud. I do think the N.C. legislature intended their words to be taken quite seriously. Yes, they inserted the P.T. Barnum jab in an obvious bit of humor.

Knowing what I know about the U.S. and these kinds of occasional disputes involving regional pride, I'd say the spat is 'good natured', but in my reading of it, the Resolution takes itself pretty seriously and doesn't really offer any 'good natured' language toward its fellow state. If we are to soften the article wording, what about considering something like, "The legislature of North Carolina, where Kitty Hawk is located, responded with an outburst of regional pride more than ten years later in an official resolution, saying it 'repudiates...." DonFB (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DonFB, that's fine with me - I was also thinking that the mention of "bright school children everywhere" and the reference to GB Shaw was meant to soften the resolution's tone, whereas the original wording we had went straight for "repudiates". Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it really "good natured" to compare Whitehead with P T Barnum, a well known con man, who's motto was "there's a sucker born every minute"? Roger491127 (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Whitehead & Beach

This section needs work. The ending about Beach doesn't relate to Mrs. Whitehead. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote the subhead with the "and skeptics" as a lame catch-all to include Beach. Mr.Roger dumped in a giant piece of quoted text on Beach which I deleted because it was unedited. Maybe if he were to actually craft a few paragraphs on Beach, with *selected*/footnoted quotes, this stray piece of Beach text could be included, and Beach could become his own subsection under Controversy. DonFB (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not an accepted practice to delete text from discussion pages in wikipedia, Carroll.

I hereby restore the text you deleted from this discussion page:

I've not deleted any text from the Discussion page - and I've not ever done so - this is a false accusation. You are mistaken, Roger. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Beach's clash with Whitehead

- - from http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm/7 - - "Almost a year later, in his report on the second annual exhibit of the Aero Club of America (Scientific American, December 15, 1906), Beach wrote: 'The body framework of Gustave Whitehead's latest bat-like aeroplane was shown mounted on pneumatic tired, ball-bearing wire wheels….Whitehead also exhibited the 2-cylinder steam engine which revolved the road wheels of his former bat machine, with which he made a number of short flights in 1901.' - - Why did Beach, an enthusiastic supporter of Whitehead who liberally credited Whitehead's powered flight successes of 1901, later become a Wright devotee? O'Dwyer offered some intriguing answers, all reflected by his research files, which state that in 1910 Whitehead refused to work any longer on Beach's flat-winged biplane. Angered, Beach broke with Whitehead and sent a mechanic to Whitehead's shop in Fairfield to disassemble the plane and take it to Beach's barn in Stratford. In later years (in O'Dwyer's words), 'Beach became a politician, rarely missing an opportunity to mingle with the Wright tide that had turned against Whitehead, notably after Whitehead's death in 1927. - - 'The significance of the foregoing can be appreciated by the fact that Beach's 1939 statement denouncing Whitehead (almost totally at odds with his earlier writings) was quoted by Orville Wright (as shown earlier). Far more important, however, was the Smithsonian's use of the Beach statement as a standard and oft-quoted source for answering queries about aviation's beginnings-because it said that Gustave Whitehead did not fly.'" Roger491127 (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dvorak: I personally do not believe that Whitehead ever succeeded in making any airplane flights. Here are my reasons: 1. Whitehead did not possess sufficient mechanical skill and equipment to build a successful motor. 2. Whitehead was given to gross exaggeration. He was eccentric—a visionary and a dreamer to such an extent that he actually believed what he merely imagined. He had delusions."

Note that Whitehead refused to work anymore on the motor design Dvorak had made, stating that it could not work due to the faulty design. This made Drorak very angry at Whitehead. Dvorak never found another mechanic who could make his design work either.

Note also that Whitehead was known for making very good motors. He got so many orders for motors that he had to return most of them because he didn't have time to fabricate hundreds of motors. His motors were bought by the Witteman brothers and Octave Chanute mentioned Whitehead's motors to the Wright brothers. Roger491127 (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

About Gibbs-Smith, quoted above

"Orville Wright himself also dealt with the Whitehead claims in a brief article in the magazine U.S. Air Services (August 1945), which reads as follows:"

Note that Gibbs-Smith is building the whole case against Whitehead on the criticism put forward by Orville Wright, and his criticism has been refuted, point by point by later investigations.

'The myth of Gustave Whitehead having made a power flight in 1901 was founded upon the story which appeared in the Bridgeport Herald of August 18, 1901. Although this mythical flight was alleged to have taken place on August 14th, and to have been witnessed by a Herald reporter, the news was withheld four days and appeared as a feature story in a Sunday edition of that paper! Would the editor of the Herald have held back for four days a story of such great human and historical interest, if he believed it to be true? The strangest part of all is that anyone should think that Howell's story was intended to be taken as fact. It was printed with a large heading entitled "Flying", illustrated with witches riding astraddle their brooms.

Note that the Bridgeport Herald was a weekly newspaper, which explains the delay in publishing which Orville puts so much weight on.

Orville also makes a big thing out of the row of "witches riding astraddle their brooms" which we do not know who inserted, it could have been the people who formatted the page before printing it.

The Herald represented that just four persons were present on the occasion—"Gustave Whitehead, Andrew Cellie and James Dickie, his two partners in the flying machine, and a representative of the Herald."

In an affidavit dated April 2, 1937, the above-mentioned James Dickie, after saying that he had worked with Gustave Whitehead when Whitehead was constructing and experimenting with airplanes, said:

I do not know Andrew Cellie, the other man who is supposed to have witnessed the flight of August 14th, 1901, described in the Bridgeport Herald. I believe the entire story in the Herald was imaginary, and grew out of the comments of Whitehead in discussing what he hoped to get from his plane. I was not present and did not witness any airplane flight on August 14, 1901. I do not remember or recall ever hearing of a flight with this particular plane or any other that Whitehead ever built."

Note that Dickies statements and behavior has been explained by the phone interview Major O'Dwyer made with Dickie, which makes it clear that Dickie was very angry at Whitehead because "he never paid me and my father what he owned us. I will never credit Whitehead with anything". But Major O'Dwyer noted that Dickie did not deny being present August 14 1901, he just refused to talk about it.

Andrew Cellie, the witness which could not be found by Stella Randolph was investigated by Major O'Dwyer who came to the conclusion that his name had been spelled wrongly. His real name was Sully and was Whitehead's closest neighbor. He had died before the 1960s but Major O'Dwyer interviewed his relatives and friends who all said that Sulli had said all his life that he was present when Whitehead flew August 14 1901

John J. Dvorak, a Chicago business man, who in 1904 was on the teaching staff of Washington University of St. Louis, spent some months that year with Whitehead at Bridgeport, while Whitehead was building a motor financed by Dvorak. Dvorak finally came to the conclusion that Whitehead was incapable of building a satisfactory motor and in disgust he left. In an affidavit dated July 18, 1936, Dvorak said:

I personally do not believe that Whitehead ever succeeded in making any airplane flights. Here are my reasons: 1. Whitehead did not possess sufficient mechanical skill and equipment to build a successful motor. 2. Whitehead was given to gross exaggeration. He was eccentric—a visionary and a dreamer to such an extent that he actually believed what he merely imagined. He had delusions."

Note that Whitehead refused to work anymore on the motor design Dvorak had made, stating that it could not work due to the faulty design. This made Drorak very angry at Whitehead. Dvorak never found another mechanic who could make his design work either. Note also that Whitehead was known for making very good motors. He got so many orders for motors that he had to return most of them because he didn't have time to fabricate hundreds of motors. His motors were bought by the Witteman brothers and Octave Chanute mentioned Whitehead's motors to the Wright brothers.

In May, 1901, Stanley Y. Beach visited Whitehead at Bridgeport and wrote an illustrated article about Whitehead's machine, which was published in the Scientific American of June 8, 1901. Later he induced his father to advance money to continue Whitehead's experiments. Although Beach saw Whitehead frequently in the years from 1901 to 1910, Whitehead never told him that he had flown. Beach has said that he does not believe that any of Whitehead's machines ever left the ground under their own power, in spite of assertions of persons thirty-five years later who thought they remembered seeing them. Beach's nine years' association with Whitehead placed him in a better position to know what Whitehead had done than that of other persons who were associated with Whitehead but a short time, or those who had so little technical training, or so little interest that they remained silent for thirty-five years about an event which, if true, would have been the greatest historic achievement in aviation up to that time. If Whitehead really had flown, certainly Beach, who had spent nearly ten thousand dollars on the experiments, would have been the last to deny it

Regarding the Whitehead story, Gibbs-Smith quotes Orville Wright who in turn quotes both Dickie and Dvorak. Beach's father's $10k is mentioned

Why would Beach talk his father into investing 10 000 dollars in Whitehead if he did not have a lot of respect for him as a mechanic and airplane builder?

The whole judgement by Gibbs-Smith is built on faulty statements by Orville Wright. And unfortunately and uncritically these statements were also used by the Smithsonian to discredit Whitehead.

Binksternet's formulation "Gibbs-Smith's rather brilliant analysis and critique of the claims made re: Whitehead" is very faulty and misleading considering that Gibbs-Smith never did any analysis, he just quoted Orville Wright's faulty statements about Whitehead. Roger491127 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That was my comment, Roger, not Binksternet's. I was referring to Gibbs-Smith's 52 page analysis (yes, he did one, Roger), plus addendum. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot access those 52 pages of "brilliant analysis" but judging from the page from Gibbs-Smith we have seen above he is obviously the complete opposite of brilliant, he uncritically uses the faulty arguments Orville used to discredit Whitehead. Roger491127 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One of my favorite editors here says "References talk, bullshit walks." I would like to see a reliable published source take Gibbs-Smith's points apart one by one. Only then will I consider Gibbs-Smith matched. Even after that, we will have two expert sources in conflict, not one expert source that trumps the other. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reproductions

I restored the very important text in the article about how new blueprints were made. I have argued for why it must be included here on the discussion page and it was deleted without any discussion questioning my reasoning why it must be included. The person who deleted it from the article should first put forward his arguments for why it should be deleted before he deletes it. Roger491127 (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote: The proper and widely accepted usage of "Replica" and "Reproduction" with respect to aircraft is: a Replica is built by the same person or people or company as the original, while a Reproduction is built by a company or person or people other than those who built the original. I notice that the text you offer, Roger, does not mention making use of the three-view of the No.21 drawn in the 1930's. If used, the above text which Roger cites can and should be worded more economically. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The text can hardly be edited to to "be worded more economically", it is already worded as economically as it can be without losing important parts of it. The text is also an important historical material which should not be changed. Would you cut off pieces of the painting Mona Lisa at the Louvre because it takes up too much space? Roger491127 (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Carroll: "the text you offer, Roger, does not mention making use of the three-view of the No.21 drawn in the 1930's".

If you know anything about that you can add it below the text, but do not delete the text which shows how the blueprints in the 1960s were made which at least three replicas were built from and all three replicas showed that Whitehead's construction could fly, refuting all comments from Orville, the Smithsonian and others who said it could not have flown because the construction was not airworthy. Roger491127 (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The text already mentions "some sketches". ""Today only a series of photographs of the aircraft N21 exists, fortunately enough clear , as well as some sketches." Don't you think those sketches are exactly the sketches you think of? So they are already mentioned in the texts. No need for you to add anything. Those sketches are mentioned only shortly, probably because they were not used much, because they were made in an amateurish way in the 1930s and much more sophisticated methods based on the photos were used which gave much more reliable results than the sketches from the 1930s. Note that those sketches were mentioned in a very economical way, which should satisfy your wishes for expressing things in an economical way.Roger491127 (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is my edit of the text you offered, Roger.

The reproductions of the No.21 were built from photographs of the original, 'some sketches' and interviews of Whitehead associates. Aviation artist Herb Kelly used a technique from WWII to render view drawings from the photographs. The "Hangar 21" group, headed by Andy Kosch, of Bridgeport, Conn., collaborated with the Committee of Leutershausen, Germany, on the design and construction of their reproduction. Engineers and others from Boeing, Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney, and Lockheed, worked on the project, whose experiences ranged from the Nazi "V2" "Vengeance" rocket of WWII to nuclear submarine design. The N.21B made short hops and was shown at the 1986 E.A.A.'s Fly-In. The Committee of Leutershausen built their own reproduction of the No.21. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have introduced the proposed text. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You two should be ashamed for falsifying what sources say, the referenced text does not include the word nazi, I replaced your false and weasleworded quote with the real text which the reference points too. Roger491127 (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, I believe you've just made a personal attack, on two people. What I offered was an edit of a long quote, I did not revise the quote - "falsify" it as you accuse me of doing - I wrote a shortened paraphrase of it.

How do you plan to specify and clarify what "V2" means, Roger ? What will you add to make it clear that the quote is referencing the Nazi regime's V2 rocket ? As it is, "V2" is too ambiguous. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of community I have changed the wording from "Nazi "V2" "Vengeance" rocket of WWII" to "WWII German 'V2' 'Vengeance/Vergeltungswaffe' rocket" which equally serves to specify and clarify the meaning of the formerly ambiguous "V2".Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, you'll notice I reconfigured the edit of the overly-long quote you offered, to place the link reference in a more appropriate place. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am happy that you removed the word Nazi from the article, thanks.

The remaining formulation: "Their experience ranged from the WWII German "V2" "Vengeance/Vergeltungswaffe" rocket to nuclear submarine design. On February 18, 1998 the German reproduction flew distances up to 500 m (1,640 ft) using a modern engine and modern propellers."

Could you remove the words "Vengeance/Vergeltungswaffe"? Isn't the rest of the clarification enough? "Their experience ranged from the WWII German "V2 rocket to nuclear submarine design. On February 18, 1998 the German reproduction flew distances up to 500 m (1,640 ft) using a modern engine and modern propellers."

"the WWII German "V2 rocket" should be clarification enough. Also, the word Vengeance is incorrect, it is not what the people who named the V2 rocket meant. The word Vergeltungswaffe is in German, which very few of the readers can understand. These are my reasons for why I think the words "Vengeance/Vergeltungswaffe" should be left out of the article.

The rest of the quote needs an explanation. Why did the constructers not copy the motor Whitehead used. The reason, that the explosive combination of acetylene and compressed air bottles, which release oxygen before the other components of air, was deemed to be too dangerous for the pilots of the replica, so they replaced Whitehead's motor and propellers with modern equivalents which were chosen to have the same power the original had. The use of modern motor and propellers should be explained in a short sentence. Roger491127 (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Explained or excused ? High-revving lightweight engines and modern efficient high-rpm "toothpick" propellers cannot ever be equivalent to the arrangement GW is supposed to have had, because the real issue is thrust.

Please note, I removed "Vengeance/Vergeltungswaffe" as a courtesy to you, Roger, please act on that courtesy. You might start by offering an apology to me for the various false and groundless accusations you've hurled my way. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Megan Adams as a reliable source

I would like to know if all editors here agree that the online references published by Megan Adams are acceptable. The first set were collected articles and affidavits assembled in one place and republished in January 1998 by Megan Adams, a self-described descendant of Whitehead. Adams' first site was redesigned and redirected in October 2006 to gustavewhitehead.org. Adams has at least one page which mentions this Wikipedia article: http://gustavewhitehead.org/the_biography.html, which might be seen as an unacceptable circular reference. Otherwise, even though both of Adams' early and later websites appear to be a self-published source (See WP:SPS), the level of scholarship looks good. Do we accept the affidavits and magazine articles as true transcriptions? Do we accept Adams' conclusions or opinions on Whitehead? Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I consider the site to be acceptable. Obviously, if the Whitehead article or the GW section in Aviation History (or any other Wikipedia mention of him) uses a comment by Megan herself, such comment would need to be explicitly referenced, probably with an added phrase explaining her family relationship. So far, the text in the main GW and Av.History articles has not used any comment by her. I have not seen anything to question the validity of the affidavits and articles reproduced on her site. Based on the content of the site, I don't see any "circular" reference problem, compared to, for example, the myriad of "mirror" sites that copy Wikipedia text. Her site is "self-published," but I suppose that could be said for the Engler Wright brothers site (wright-brothers.org) and any number of other aviation history sites. DonFB (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's safe to accept the transcriptions as being accurate. I do not think that her opinions and/or conclusions are acceptable, though. She states "I do believe that he did conduct the world's first controlled and sustained flight in a 'heavier than air flying machine'" and she is certainly entitled to her opinion, but I do not accept it as being true. Notice that she does not say "powered," which is odd, but perhaps it's an oversight. For the sake of discussion... in the 18 August 1901 article we have GW telling us he essentially rode the machine, turning off the engine driving the propellers to land, but otherwise being a passive passenger until he has a flash of insight and shifts his body weight to change the direction in which he's heading. Assuming that it even happened, whatever else might be said about that, it's difficult to call that a "controlled" flight. GW further tells us that he shifted his body weight because "I had no means of steering around them by using the machinery." He thus has stated, in the 18 August 1901 article about the supposed 14 August 1901 flight that he "had no means" to make a turn.

So, to answer you questions, yes, I think it's safe to accept her transcriptions as accurate (until proven otherwise), and no, it is not acceptable to accept her conclusions and/or opinions. We can reference them, of course. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Don and Carroll. That satisfies me. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Passive or controlled flight

Quote from Carroll Gray: " in the 18 August 1901 article we have GW telling us he essentially rode the machine, turning off the engine driving the propellers to land, but otherwise being a passive passenger until he has a flash of insight and shifts his body weight to change the direction in which he's heading. Assuming that it even happened, whatever else might be said about that, it's difficult to call that a "controlled" flight."

If you compare that with the landing one of the Wright brothers made after managing to keep Flyer I in the air for 260 meter, when the front rudder was broken, wasn't Whitehead's landing a lot more controlled, soft and safe? He only made a little adjustment of the direction just before landing, and the machine landed itself safely after he had turned off the motor. Note that he always landed exactly where he wanted to land and he landed without damage to the airplane or himself. Remember Harworth's affidavit about Whitehead starting from one avenue, flying along a street and landing on the next avenue, turning the airplane around, starting again and flying back to the starting point. Don't you realize that he must have had very good control of his airplane, flying along a street in a town without crashing into people, horses, cars, telephone poles, houses, trees, etc... and landing twice at a place on an avenue which was big enough and free from hinder. Roger491127 (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why pick nits such as whether Whitehead was in control or not? Major disputes are present, ones that question whether the flights occurred at all, let alone finer points about their nature. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I said I was making the assumption he flew in order to discuss GW's absurd lack of control, only for that reason - that goes to the question of whether the "flights" even happened - I do not believe they did, in our understanding of the word "flight." Also, I removed "Vengeance/Vergeltungswaffe" from the Reproductions section. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith puts aviation pioneers into two camps: those that were aiming to build stable aircraft and those whose goal was to fly. The first group includes the majority of pioneers, the second is the one Gibbs-Smith calls the pilots, the men who dismissed inherent stability as unattainable and unrealistic. He says that some degree of instability turned out to be required for flight control, and that the Wrights determined to make their aircraft as unstable as possible while still retaining control. One of the reasons why the Wrights were dismissed in France and elsewhere during 1904–1908 was that incomplete news of their craft was put into practical form by experimenters who immediately noticed how unstable the Flyer seemed to be in their imperfect reproductions of it. They concluded that the Wrights were so much noise, and continued to hunt for the ultimate in stable aircraft. Gibbs-Smith counts Whitehead in the stability camp, along with other experimental craft such as the lifting bodies devised by Maxim, ones which included no means to control flight. Gibbs-Smith is dismissive of any pioneer who did not include flight controls on his aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As to whether or not GW made any "flights" - which, in the modern meaning of the word, I do not believe he did - that is a question the answer to which we here cannot determine. I don't believe it's is our duty as Wiki editors to answer that question, in any event. If we did, we would be advocating for this position or that. That is my continuing difficulty with one editor who continues to try to argue that very point.

The issue of stable vs. unstable is complicated by the fact that the idea of an automatic stability device (a proto-autopilot) was always under discussion. Indeed, Orville Wright invented such a device in the pre-WWI period, as did Sperry and a number of others. I'm not one to argue with Gibbs-Smith very often, but I think that a better distinction might be, perhaps, between those builders who heavily imitated birds and those who sought to build flying machinery. The Maxim "Test Rig," the series of Langley Aerodromes and the Chanute-Herring glider are examples of the flying machinery approach, while GW and Butusov and Le Bris and Ader and many others are examples of bird-imitators, with the Kress machine falling somewhere in between.

For the purposes of this discussion about GW, his innocence about what control of a flying machine really involves is one of the greatest arguments against him ever having flown at all, much less making flights of miles and miles. This also draws a bright line about the Wrights, who sought to understand and then have control of all three axes of motion, even though, early on, they did not seek to build an inherently stable machine. There is, of course, a distinction to be drawn between control and stability.

Roger's point, above, assumes that GW made a soft landing with no damage after a "flight" - which is just the sort of supposition and uncritical acceptance which makes a muddle of discussions such as these. Plus, it isn't an appropriate thing to be doing, here. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Binksternet: "the Wrights determined to make their aircraft as unstable as possible". Well, if that really was their goal they certainly succeeded and kept on building very unstable airplanes for many years, here are some samples from their history of success:

Modern analysis by Professor Fred E. C. Culick and Henry R. Rex (1985) has demonstrated that the 1903 Wright Flyer was so unstable as to be almost unmanageable by anyone but the Wrights, who had trained themselves in the 1902 glider.

The Wrights continued flying at Huffman Prairie near Dayton, Ohio in 1904–05. After a severe crash on 14 July 1905, they rebuilt the Flyer and made important design changes. They almost doubled the size of the elevator and rudder and moved them about twice the distance from the wings. They added two fixed vertical vanes (called "blinkers") between the elevators, and gave the wings a very slight dihedral. They disconnected the rudder from the wing-warping control, and as in all future aircraft, placed it on a separate control handle. When flights resumed the results were immediate. The serious pitch instability that hampered Flyers I and II was significantly reduced, so repeated minor crashes were eliminated. Flights with the redesigned Flyer III started lasting over 10 minutes, then 20, then 30. Flyer III became the first practical aircraft (though without wheels and needing a launching device), flying consistently under full control and bringing its pilot back to the starting point safely and landing without damage. On 5 October 1905, Wilbur flew

From The Wright brothers patent war: The Wrights' preoccupation with the legal issue hindered their development of new aircraft designs, and by 1911 Wright aircraft were inferior to those made by other firms in Europe[28]The Wrights further restricted aviation progress in the United States by sticking doggedly to their basic design, despite the obvious advances being made in Europe. Improvements were made to the 1910 Model B, which had the elevator in the rear, wheels in place of skids, and did not require the tower-catapult for takeoff. The later Model C proved to be a man-killer; seven were purchased by the Army and five crashed, killing five men.. Indeed, aviation development in the US was suppressed to such an extent that when the U.S. entered World War I (in 1917) no acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and the U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines.

The Signal Corps 1913

" In 1913 alone seven officers had died, bringing the total number of aviation fatalities since 1908 to eleven officers and one enlisted man. Half of the deaths had occurred in the Wright Model C. All six of the Model Cs purchased by the Army had crashed, and Lieutenant Lahm could count himself among the lucky few to have survived. While operating a Wright C at Fort Riley in 1912, Lieutenant Arnold had come so close to death that he swore to give up flying forever. The Wright planes in general had a tendency to nose dive: When they crashed, the engine often tore loose and fell upon the pilot or passenger. With its extra power, the Model C proved more hazardous than its predecessors.

The rapidly rising death toll among Army aviators led to an investigation into the situation. In its report, the board of inquiry condemned the Wright C as "dynamically unsuited for flying."

"The switch to tractor planes, in which the engine and propellers are in front of the wings and the pilot, did not meet with the approval of Loening's former employer: For several years Orville Wright refused to begin to manufacture this type of aircraft." Roger491127 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, this is supposed to be a discussion about Gustave Whitehead. Why are you dumping paragraphs of text here about the characteristics of the Wright machines ? That is totally irrelevant. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Because Binksternet, you, Gibbs-Smith and the Wright brothers seem to think that an unstable airplane is a good airplane, so I wanted to show what such an idea can lead to, and did lead to. If Whitehead had had a little more time and resources he surely would have figured out that adding some controlled surfaces at the back-end of the tips of the wings would have been a good way to bank the airplane without using his bodyweight, but as long as his airplane was small and the movement of the body was enough to bank the airplane he had very little reason to think of other methods to achieve the same purpose. Remember also that he was very busy, working in a factory during the day, experimenting with aviation in his free time and working on projects designed by others, like Dvorak's motor and Stanley Beach's airplane which both were faulty construction ideas but Whitehead had no choice, he had to work on even hopeless projects as long as rich people paid him for it. Roger491127 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith wrote that near-instability was necessary for first flight, that the dream of inherently stable flight was a barrier to early pioneers who had no ability to achieve it. Remember we are talking about relative stability, not absolute instability. Relative to other fighters in WWII, the Supermarine Spitfire was unstable, requiring very careful pilotage which Benjamin S. Kelsey found to be extremely tiring in a 2,000-mile ferry trip. The Spitfire's relative instability was a benefit in dogfighting. Another unstable aircraft worth mentioning is the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, a flying brick if there ever was one. Relative instability has its uses, and getting an early aircraft off the ground under control was one of them. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote "the Wrights determined to make their aircraft as unstable as possible" is something I simply cannot believe, do you have a source?

To build an airplane you must first design an aerodynamically stable airplane, to avoid crashes, to avoid risking your life. After you have made a stable airplane you can easily add control surfaces to make the plane bank and turn, if needed.

I think the Wright brothers wanted to create an aerodynamically stable airplane but they were simply incompetent so they had big pitch problems with Flyer I and II, which resulted in crashes and "unintended landings". In Oct 1905 they had finally managed to add stabilizing surfaces and other changes which allowed them to keep the airplane in the air for longer flights, but they still needed to react very quickly to correct the attitude of the airplane.

Your modern examples like F-117, and front-mounted horizontal rudder surfaces on fighter planes are totally dependent on very fast computer control. To use a human-controlled front-mounted horizontal rudder surface in 1903 was simply a very stupid decision. The only rational reason I can find for their strange and unstable construction is that they wanted to make a unique construction which they could patent without being accused of using construction ideas other early aviators had already developed. Without assuming such a reason it is difficult to understand why they did not use, for example, Lilienthal's design of an end section with both horizontal and vetrical stabilizing fins. Roger491127 (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith sets it down starting on page 37 of his 1960 book, where he writes that the Wrights concluded in 1899–1900 that there were two "radically different concepts of aviation", that of the groundsman and that of the airman. The groundsman designed an aircraft as an object outside of himself, one that had a major goal of inherent stability to the neglect of control and maneuverability—something akin to a limousine with a driver. Typical of this school were Maxim and Langley, and many other early European pioneers from 1904 to 1909. On the other hand, the airmen, who were "just as concerned with theory and research as their rivals", saw humans twined with the aircraft to create a man-machine combination, a tool with which to live and learn in the air, to experience it viscerally. Early examples were Cayley and Le Bris, followed by Lilienthal, Pilcher, Ferber, Chanute and the Wrights themselves. Gibbs-Smith writes: "The men of this school at first took up into the air the same concept of inherent stability, inherited from their ancestors: but the very problems facing them as they rode their gliders into the wind began to make them consider a more dynamic approach ...So when the Wrights built their first full-size glider in 1900 it incorporated two ideas which the brothers were to utilise throughout their early work—the intentionally unstable aeroplane which could be kept flying satisfactorily only by the pilot's skill; and the warping of the wings for lateral control and stability." There you have it. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read, the Wrights (Wilbur mostly) were strongly influenced by Lilienthal's fatal crash, and decided very early to create some kind of positive aerodynamic control which did not depend on shifting one's body weight to change the center of gravity. Wilbur's observation of large gliding birds (buzzards) also convinced him, according to biographers, that changes in wing shape were the key to such control. Inherent stability was basically irrelevant to them at that time. Biographers have also pointed out that the Wrights may have been influenced by their experience with bicycles: a highly unstable vehicle that could be learned to be balanced and steered with precise mechanical control inputs. Also, they may have been influenced to use a canard by Lilienthal's "rebound bow"--a front-mounted flexible strut for protection in case of a nosedive. The glider in which Lilienthal suffered his fatal crash did not have a rebound bow installed. DonFB (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we know how the story ended, all propeller airplanes after the Wright brothers had rear-end mounted vertical and horizontal stabilising areas and movable parts of those areas which could be used to control pitch and yaw. Most airplanes before the brothers were built according to the same principles, so the Wright front pitch rudder was an unsuccessful parenthesis in the history of aviation.

Whitehead had a large tail on nr21 which could be adjusted up- and downwards, so much we know. But he also talked about "the rudder" and we do not know for sure what he meant with that word. It was used on nr22 so it may not have been included in nr21. It could mean a rear-mounted vertical fin which could be moved, or it could mean that he twisted the tail as birds do to help to control turns in the air. The last solution was surely easier to implement as he already had ropes which could be used together to move tail up or down, if he just separated these ropes and moved them separately the tail would become twisted and act like a yaw control rudder. Roger491127 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Don FB and Binksternet, I agree with all that you've written, it all sounds correct to me. There is, also, a fundamental and critical difference in the approaches taken by Wilbur and Orville Wright, and GW. The Wrights set on an incremental approach very early on, whereby they modified their gliders (developed from their kites) as they needed to, to address various phenomena and issues they encountered while gliding. It is quite something to note how the design of Wright machines, dating back Wilbur's kite of 1899, progressed with purpose. GW, like so many other aerial experimenters, went from one design to another. His D'Esterno (1864)-derived No.21 was very unlike his 1897 glider or his wing-flapping machine of 1898. GW's patented large "Albatross"-type 1908 glider was also very different (even while sharing the same wing layout) from his No.21. I know of no photos of No.22 (or of the even more elusive No.23), but, if built, it was supposed to have been designed much like the No.21. We see the same in the design of GWs many engines... different fuels, different layouts, different materials... That in and of itself is not a bad thing, the more haphazard approach taken by GW did not necessarily guarantee failure, but neither did it guarantee success. In the end, though, the incremental and methodical path taken by the Wrights proved to be the more successful approach. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I know how much you like to mention the "wing-flapping machine of 1898" because it is very damaging to the impression of Whitehead. But what do we really know about it? Was it a fullscale machine meant to carry a human or was it just a little toy? Was it Whitehead's idea to build it or was it the toymaker he worked for who told him to make such a toy? Roger491127 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not referring to the 1897 Boston glider with two human-powered flapping winglets, but to GW's large flapping-wing machine, with four flapping-wings and a very long tail, of 1898. This is the first time I've mentioned this machine, here. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

... and, Roger, what makes you think I see GW as a "flip-flopping fool" (your characterization, not mine, which you just now posted, then removed) ? I've never said nor written any such thing. Instead of telling me what I think, why don't you ask ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

When you see Whitehead as a flip-flopping fool who couldn't decide what to go for I see a real scientist, who tried all kinds of ideas to find out which worked best. For example, he tried all possible and impossible fuels to find out which fuel gave most energy. He even tried gun-powder, an experiment which ended when the motor exploded.

If I compare him with the Wright brothers I must say that the Wright brothers were stubborn fools, who decided on one construction to begin with, and stuck to it no matter how badly it performed. Even as late as 1913, after their machine had killed a bunch of pilots Orville refused to change the design. Roger491127 (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, you were editing simultaneously so there was an edit conflict, so I cancelled and waited until I could post my text. Actually, it was you who deleted my first three lines by clicking Save page not noticing that there was an edit conflict going on. Roger491127 (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I can change my wording "When you see Whitehead as a flip-flopping" into When you portrait Whitehead as a flip-flopping fool, aware of it or not... Roger491127 (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, how do you come up with this stuff ?? I'm not portraying GW as a "flip-flopping fool"... GW is the one who built the large four-winged flapping-wing machine in 1898, I'm not making that up. If you think someone spending their time and (very little) money and effort in the 1890's to try to fly makes them a fool, that is for you to say, but I haven't and I never would. In my mind, anyone who did anything to try to fly before 17 December 1903 did a remarkable thing. People lost their lives in that pursuit. Like GW, many died in poverty, having devoted their all to the pursuit of flight. So, when you continue to hurl even more accusations and hostile characterizations at me or anyone else, you're doing yourself and GW no favor. Humility, Roger - I believe the word in Swedish is "ödmjukhet"... Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to ödmjukhet (humility) you cannot expect much from me. I thought really deeply once when I was 10 years old about how I should handle the situation if I ever met somebody who knew more than me and was more intelligent. I still haven't had any use for the result of that contemplation. During all my school years I was allowed to sit in the school library and read what I wanted, because the teachers understood how I was suffering from having to hear the teacher explain for the tenth time something I already knew before the lesson started. So my advantage over the others only increased year by year as I only attended the tests and spent the rest of my time in the school library or the communal public library. Every autumn when we got new schoolbooks for the coming year I spent 2-3 weeks sucking in every useful information in those books, then I ignored those books for the rest of the year.

But I am sorry I did not take you seriously when you talked about Whitehead's experiments with flapping wings, after your more detailed explanation I understand that there is some reality behind these explanations.

I still think of Whitehead as a scientist though, not afraid to try any idea no matter how farfetched it sounds. That is a much better attitude than the singleminded and stubborn attitude the Wright brothers showed. Roger491127 (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Einstein had an attitude similar to Whitehead, coming up with the idea that time does not run at the same speed everywhere and under all conditions is an example of testing ideas which very few people would even think of. Roger491127 (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Whitehead a scientist? Whitehead compared to Einstein?? This talk page discussion is going farther away from article improvement possibilities with each step. Let's get past humility and its obvious lack, and get back to work on the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Roger, I will say this, and then will not say more about myself and my interest. Let's have an understanding. When you read something I have posted, it will almost never be a joke or mock or a statement of things which I do not believe or support - it will not be something written simply for effect. I take aeronautical history very very seriously, and I am very well versed in the subject. I have concentrated on the period of the 1760's through 1916, excluding The Great War, and am comfortable with those 160 or so years of aeronautical history. I have been working diligently on the aeronautical history chronological reference book I have been writing for some 28 years, and it is now in excess of 1,700 single-spaced pages. I have also devoted more than that time to a biography of a US pioneer aviator. I have translated a 62 page memoir of a French pioneer aviator from French into English, and have translated a 130 page memoir of a pre-revolutionary Russian aviator from Russian into English. I give presentations, perhaps 6 or more a year, on aeronautical history. I have an extensive collection of original material, including relics and artifacts of the period which interests me. I do not swim in these waters for recreation or play.

I'll close this by saying you've misread my intention. Recall, I wrote "That in and of itself is not a bad thing, the more haphazard approach taken by GW did not necessarily guarantee failure, but neither did it guarantee success." I was not expressing disapproval of that approach, I was assessing it in light of the more successful approach taken by Wilbur and Orville Wright.

I agree with Binksternet, can we resume discussion of the GW article ? We really needn't have endless discussions about the Wrights, here, either, or have these pages swamped with cut and paste material about the Wrights and their machines. We could do so over on the Wright Wiki article, but not here. Here we are, at some point, hopefully going to agree on an article which serves the purpose of providing the reader with balanced, neutral information and proper resources. Can we do that ? That is what I am here to do. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)