Talk:Wright brothers

The Importance of Kites

Years ago, I read a Scientific American article about the Wright Brothers. (Probably in the 80s or 90s.) According to the article, the main purpose of the kits was to solve safety problems. They discovered the conditions that would cause wings to stall, and figured out how to prevent or recover from this, with their kites. Their commitment to safety came out of their decision to fly the planes themselves. So their decision to work out safety issues with unmanned kites before they ever built a full size plane was central to their success. But this article doesn't make that point It only mentions kites as a means of studying controls. (If I get a more accurate date for the article, I'll post it here.) — MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. Control and safety end up being the same thing in terms of results. If you can't control a plane it is unsafe. I'm not against someone adding more about safety, though. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing that article or a verifiable summary. My understanding from Wright biographies and Smithsonian articles is that the 1899 kite was intended to test control (wing warping in particular); I'm not aware that the brothers had much if any concept about "stall" at that early stage. Binksternet makes a good point that safety and control are closely linked. DonFB (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wrights certainly had some concept of stalling, as is evident from Wilbur Wright's address to the Western Society of Engineers in 1901 [1] Consider this description of a Lilienthal glider mishap:

Template:Tq Wilbur goes on to describe in some detail what he saw as the cause of this phenomenon (movement of the centre of pressure with changes in angle of attack, to use modern terminology - see also the numbered summary statements at the end of the address).

As for the purpose of kite experiments, Wilbur explicitly states in the same address that manned kites were seen as a means of gaining experience:

Template:Tq

Note however that Wilbur begins his address by describing how earlier unmanned kite experiments had demonstrated that certain assumptions regarding lift generated made by previous experimenters were incorrect, and that further experimentation was needed in order to determine the optimum aerofoil profile, wing planform etc - which eventually led to the Wright's building their wind tunnel. I'm not sure it is particularly useful to assert definitively what the purpose of the Wright kite experiments was - they saw achieving successful powered flight as something to be achieved through practical experimentation, and the kites were a part of this ongoing process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC).

There might be some confusion here over terminology. MiguelMunoz may be referring not simply to the 1899 kite, but to the subsequent gliders, which the brothers did fly unmanned as big kites before climbing in and piloting them. But the 1899 kite, which was truly the size of a kite, was not, I believe, intended to investigate much about lift and stall, but only to see if wing warping could be a workable method of lateral control. DonFB (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Without Katherine's German skills

there would be no flight for these two. Their sister was the key element for them to understand any of the German engineering and physics they were trying to implement, and the article appears to near-intentionally omit her presence vis-a-vis importance in the factual progress.

Happy to have the promise rings her brothers bestowed upon her, to be left out though. Arcsoda (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

We have a full biography of Katharine Wright Haskell, and she is discussed quite a bit in this article. If you have a source which suggests that her knowledge of German played a significant part in the events described, cite it, and we can consider adding it, both here, and to her biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thx 47.44.177.230 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wright brothers/1}}

Heavier-than-air?

The lead paragraph describes the brothers as having flown a "heavier-than-air aircraft" but this is meaningless and removing the adjective should be considered. All flying creatures and objects are heavier than air, so it is tautological to say so. It make the encyclopaedia look illiterate. Spideog (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hot air balloons are lighter-than-air aircraft, and have been used for human flights sinvce 1783. The Wright brothers did not create the first aircraft. Dimadick (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Try lifting a hot air balloon. Much heavier than air. Spideog (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hot air lifts hot air balloons by making them lighter than surrounding cooler air. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

So is a hot air balloon lighter than air or heavier? The article says heavier but you say lighter. Spideog (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The article does not say hot air balloons are heavier than air. They are lighter than air. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

What a load of pedantic nonsense. Obviously the balloon itself is denser than air. When filled with air hotter than the surrounding atmosphere the whole may be less dense. In any case, @Lighter than air' is the generally accepted term for aerostats.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Who's claiming the Wright brothers created the first aircraft? DeerManGoat (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Nobody. They built the first powered heavier-than air aircraft capable of controlled flight and of taking off under its own power. Unless,, of course, you are Brazilian.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

I would like to add to the external links section. I want to add a hyperlink to http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/article-summary/wilbur_wright_obituary with the label Wilbur Wright Obituary from Collier's Magazine, 1912. Sonny.lucas (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No, we aren't going to help you promote the website you have been spamming into multiple articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Two articles

Since Orville and Wilbur Wright are both very famous, shouldn't they both have their own Wikipedia article. Both of the Brothers Grimm have their own article, so shouldn't the Wright brothers, who are maybe more famous, have their own. I would like you to look into this. I would mostly suggest that you have this article, a "Wilbur Wright" article, and an "Orville Wright" article, like the Brothers Grimm 2600:1700:C9A0:2040:BB5D:53CF:9342:7117 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be beneficial to readers. It would appear to do little beyond duplicating content unnecessarily, given that essentially everything the Wrights are known for was cooperative work. As for the Brothers Grimm article, Wikipedia doesn't work by precedent, and discussion regarding the merits or otherwise of a split shouldn't be based on what is done elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This idea is the subject of previous discussions (in which I participated, here and here) and generated little support. I know of no biographies focusing on only one or the other brother. Separate articles about them, I believe, would result in a very large overlap of content. It is true they had markedly different personalities, and that has been mentioned in books and media articles. Wilbur: strong-willed and taciturn; Orville: more light-hearted but almost pathologically shy. I think those qualities can be readily described in the single existing article. I have previously suggested that a separate article might be written about Orville's life after Wilbur's death; he outlived his brother by 36 years. Any separation of their lives together would require us, as editors, to selectively filter the information in the many published joint biographies of them and direct those distinguishing details into the respective articles. But, aside from Orville's post-Wilbur life, I don't think such differentials would add up sufficiently to justify the split. DonFB (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)