Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:41, 14 May 2013

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Biography This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aerospace biography project. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Connecticut High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I'm not sure why this content isn't in the article

"On October 15, 1964, Charles Wittemann made a written and tape-recorded statement under oath in which he declared he’d spent a week working alongside Whitehead in his Bridgeport workshop, had examined Whitehead’s acetylene motor and found it capable of performing the claimed flight of 1901. The significance of Wittemann’s statement is not only his personal knowledge of the engine but also his legal standing. Wittemann was appointed by US President, Woodrow Wilson, as America’ Chief Aviation Expert in WW1. His expert witness statement therefore has added evidentiary weight".Tomticker5 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably one reason it's not in this article is because most of us did not know about that website until recently. It has a lot of very interesting material, including devastating rebuttals of Gibbs-Smith's conclusions, and to some extent, of Crouch's research also. Jane's is apparently basing its new opinion about Whitehead on that site (and explicitly names the site and its author, John Brown), so we may well be justified in considering the site to be a legitimate source. It does, however, contain at least one completely outrageous and unsourced statement of its own, namely that Wilbur Wright "had withdrawn years earlier to become a fundamentalist, religious preacher". That kind of comment can cast doubt on a researcher's credibility. The Witteman statement about the acetylene engine is part of Brown's debunking of Gibbs-Smith's dismissal of GW as an engine builder. There are a number of things like that in Brown's website that could be mentioned and referenced in this article. DonFB (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Some Misplaced Pages contributors appear to be unaware of the Wrights' fundamentalist religious background and that Wilbur planned to study theology at Yale University in New Haven, CT to become a preacher. This is contained in a letter by Wilbur to his father, Milton. There is nothing outrageous about that statement from Brown. Indeed, it's rather mild in the overall context of the Wrights' religious involvement. As legal representative of his father, Bishop Wright, didn't Wilbur prosecute two churches and on two occasions left his experiments at Kitty Hawk to do so?Tomticker5 (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the Wright offspring were religious. Wilbur helped his father in a quasi-legal fashion, writing pamphlets and the like. After abandoning plans to attend Yale, he showed zero interest in the ministry, according to multiple biographies. The brothers refrained from work or experiments on Sundays out of respect for the father, but not due to any religious feelings of their own, which were absent, according to the biographers. Brown's statement remains highly questionable and seems to betray the same kind of superficial knowledge as your post above. DonFB (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible photograph of Gustave Whitehead's "flight"

Amateur historian John Brown has found a photo in an old attic that he says might be a piece of photographic evidence to validate Gustave Whitehead's claim that he was the first man to achieve heavier-than-air flight (http://www.wyso.org/post/newly-found-photo-reignites-debate-over-first-flight-claim). However, this newly discovered photo is extremely blurry and requires forensic analysis to prove that the August 1901 newspaper report is not pure fantasy. Nevertheless, if the photo does show the Whitehead No.21 plane in flight, it would force the Smithsonian Institution to nullify a contract hailing the Wright Flyer as the first-ever heavier than air machine to achieve sustained flight and the American public will be absolutely dumbstruck to find out that Whitehead had flown a plane before the Wright brothers. Time will tell if analysis of the photo found by Brown holds water. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

More useful will be what happens when according to the link "Senior Curator of Aeronautics at the Smithsonian Institution, Tom Crouch will be in Dayton Wednesday and will address the question at a press briefing." GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to that also, though I'm sure Crouch will basically repeat the party line about Whitehead.

John Brown's photo analysis is here, and is also discussed on the home page of his website. He claims he has identified the original photo of Whitehead's #21 airplane in flight, from which he believes the lithograph in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald was made. One would need a lot of faith and strong imagination to be convinced that this picture (bottom frame) shows Whitehead flying the airplane. DonFB (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

From Jane's foreword; "Whitehead's No. 22, the next machine, this time powered by a 40 hp diesel engine, was similarly reported in flight on 17 January 1902 and confirmed as having executed a circular course over the shallows between Charles Island and Bridgeport, demonstrating its navigability and practicality. That manoeuvre was made possible by the roll control technique of wing-warping - the fact confirmed by a technical article in Aeronautical World for December 1902, well ahead of the Wrights patenting the method as their own. Affidavits and statements by 17 people, some of them recorded on tape and film or video, bear witness to the many powered flights made by Whitehead between August 1901 and January 1902."Tomticker5 (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(Of course we all know that a handful of affidavits denied a Whitehead flight.) Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it's likely they were paid to change their story?Tomticker5 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Do the reliable sources say they were paid? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane's published statements in 1904

Cochrane stated that when sufficient speed was attained, the aviator (GW) could tilt the planes slightly upward, "rising from the ground", and skimming along "slightly above the surface". Cochrane's description of GW's controlled powered flight was published in 1904, reprinted in 1911 and was undisputed at the time.Tomticker5 (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That hardly qualifies as a description of "controlled powered flight," nor am I aware of any recognized historians who made that statement about the experiment. The "flight" does bear much resemblance to the powered, foot-launched hops made by Augustus Herring at the Lake Michigan shore just before the Twentieth Century arrived.

Remember, Tom, your interpretation or opinion of such published descriptions is not what counts; it will take a few more statements from sources like Jane's and--who knows?--maybe a statement from the Smithsonian, before you'll be justified declaring--and writing in this article--that GW did what you believe. DonFB (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence motor paragraph

I know you want to add as much supportive material as possible, but the text about the Lawrence motor is painfully and excessively detailed, and reads like much or most of it is a straight copy-and-paste from the source, which I haven't seen. Due to the age of the source, the text is probably not a copyright violation, but it is a rather unappetizing chunk of fodder. Here's my suggestion for editing it down to a more palatable, cogent and appropriately encyclopedic addition:

"In 1908 Whitehead designed and built a 75 hp lightweight two-cycle motor at the suggestion of aviation pioneer George A. Lawrence, who was having difficulty obtaining an aeronautic engine. The water-cooled machine was designed so that good cylinders continued to work if others failed, a safety factor to help avoid accidents due to engine failure. The men formed Whitehead Motor Works with an office in New York City and a factory in Bridgeport, Connecticut that built motors in three sizes: 25, 40 and 75 hp, weighing 95, 145 and 200 pounds respectively."

DonFB (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Article introduction

The article introduction should be about the topic of the article which is the aviator Gustave Whitehead.Tomticker5 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class aviation articles
• B-Class aerospace biography articles
• Aerospace biography task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Connecticut articles
• High-importance Connecticut articles
• WikiProject Connecticut articles
• Start-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles