Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Gustave Whitehead. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Article Edits

DonFB and Roger, I have decided to not contribute any of my own research to the article (which would not be appropriate, anyway) and so I have begun to do minor edits to the article to correct some of the more obvious errors and omissions.

The relatively minor changes I just made are:

His name and work lapsed into obscurity until a 1935 magazine article and follow-up book spotlighted his legacy and sparked a vigorous "first flight" debate among aviation buffs—including Orville Wright—that has lasted ever since.

changed to

His name and work lapsed into obscurity until a 1935 magazine article and subsequent books spotlighted his reported flights and sparked a vigorous "first flight" debate among aviation buffs, enthusiasts, historians and pioneers—including Orville Wright—that has lasted ever since.

He did most of his aviation work from about 1895 to 1911

changed to

He did most of his aviation work from about 1897 to 1911

He built several, one which was inspired by the Lilienthal glider.

changed to

He built two, one with flapping winglets (which was not successful) and one which was derivative of the Lilienthal glider.

Also in 1897, the manufacturer Horsman

changed to

Also in 1897, the manufacturer E. I. Horsman

Pittsburgh 1898-1899

changed to

Pittsburgh 1899

Connecticut 1900-1927

changed to

Connecticut 1901-1927

The article said he made his first flight in the aircraft after daybreak.

changed to

The article said "By this time the light was good. Faint traces of the rising sun began to suggest themselves in the east." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They all look good to me.

The prohibition against Original Research is fundamental to Wikipedia, but there is a little wiggle room. Here is a paragraph from the Original Research policy:

"Citing oneself

If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."

So, what they're saying is that any "new" or existing information must still have been made public in a reliable source before it can be used in Wikipedia. A person who has performed original research is not prohibited from adding the information, if the information previously appeared in a reliable, verifiable source. ("Verifiable" means anyone can check to see if specific "material" in a Wikipedia article can be found in a reliable source.) Almost certainly, the source of the new information should be cited. (Not every statement in a Wikipedia article has to be cited, but "new" information, especially about a controversial subject, should be cited to justify its inclusion and reduce the chance of a challenge and removal.)

The policy refers to "a reliable publication," but I think that would extend to a "reliable" website (but that's just my opinion). Anyway, I point out these policy details for your use and guidance. The page in all its glory, if haven't seen it, is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Any word from Doug Malan? DonFB (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Malan asked me to pester him at his private e-mail address if I didn't hear form him in a few days, so I will.

Also, I believe I have located the whereabouts of the O'Dwyer Archive. I'll let you know once I confirm its location.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Another Edit

Whitehead devised two mechanisms for steering: the rope from wing edge to wing edge so he could try wing bending, and another mechanism to vary the speed of the two tractor propellers independently. He reportedly found that moving his body sideways worked so well that there is no record of him trying wing bending.

changed to

Whitehead devised two mechanisms for steering: the rope from wing edge to wing edge so he could try wing bending, and another mechanism to vary the speed of the two tractor propellers independently. However, the result of varying the speed of one propeller on a machine with two propellers (without applying a vertical rudder), is to cause the machine to yaw about its center of gravity, rather than enter a turn. He reportedly found that moving his body sideways worked so well that there is no record of him trying wing bending. Whitehead also stated in the Bridgeport Herald article previously referred to, "I was a hundred yards distant from them (note: trees) and I knew that I could not clear them by rising higher, and also that I had no means of steering around them by using the machinery." - a statement which casts doubt on the "wing bending" arrangement mentioned above.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Although Whithead's brother described a rope connected to the wingtips as a possible means of steering, Whitehead told the Herald that he had "no means of steering".

changed to

Although Whithead's brother described a rope connected to the wingtips as a possible means of steering, Whitehead told the Herald that he had "no means of steering… by using the machinery".

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Connecticut 1901-1927

changed to

Connecticut 1901

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Whitehead's Number 21 was a racy-looking monoplane with a wingspan of 36 ft (11 m). The wings were constructed of silk, ribbed with bamboo, supported by steel wires and modelled after the shape of a soaring bird's wing.

changed to

Whitehead's Number 21 monoplane had a wingspan of 36 ft (11 m). The wings were ribbed with bamboo, supported by steel wires and were very similar to the shape of the Lilienthal glider's wings. The arrangement for folding the wings also closely followed the Lilienthal design. Reports vary as to the covering used on the wings - silk (ex: William J. O'Dwyer), muslin (ex: Richard Howell) and canvas (ex: John Whitehead).

note: The reference to the wings of Nr. 21 being modeled on a soaring bird's wing is simply in error. Soaring bird's wings have a high-aspect ratio (narrow chord, long span). That cannot be said of Nr. 21's wings, so I changed it to the wording above.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Carroll, you can save a bit of work with a brief description of an edit in the "summary" text line just below the Edit window, a strongly recommended practice. It's not necessary to copy complete edits in the Discussion page; but potentially controversial edits can be explained here. Actual changes to an article can be seen by clicking on the "Diff" link in an article's History page, or in a personal Watchlist. DonFB (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - very helpful. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Slight correction: On an article History page, the link to click is "Prev" (Previous); that will show the edit changes for a particular time and day. (The "Cur" (Current) link shows the difference between the most recent version and an earlier version.) In a Watchlist, use the "Diff" (Difference) link. DonFB (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

J. Harworth Photo & Smithsonian

I do not understand why the photo of J. Harworth is included. Wouldn't it be better to first exhaust photos directly related to G.W. before including a prominently-placed photo of one of his supporters/workers ?

Also, I do not see that the Controversy & Smithsonian sections need to be so dominant. The article is too light on aerial machine-related narrative and too heavily weighted on what was, truly, a matter involving the Smithsonian and the Wright Family heirs. The fact that Wm. J. O'Dwyer was able to obtain the wording of that "Contract"/agreement is not central to the G.W. story.

The Smithsonian has not tried to suppress the G.W. story - far from it. G.W.'s placard and photo in the Early Flight Gallery is every bit the equal of the one devoted to Glenn L. Martin, for instance. Following the logic of including these sections in the G.W. article, then all the Wikipedia articles regarding everyone who tried to make a flight and managed a hop prior to 17 December 1903 should include the "Contract" matter, as well.

Wouldn't it be better to have the "Contract"/agreement matter be its own Wikipedia article and then link from the G.W. article to that other article - with a brief summary in the G.W. article?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the Harworth photo. I would not object to its deletion, although I can suggest someone who would. I also agree that the article would benefit from more information directly related to GW's aviation and engine-building work. If there are more sources or untapped material from existing sources to bring out that information, let's do so.

The Smithsonian information does not need to be in its own section. However, I do think the Smithsonian issue is quite relevant to the Gustave Whitehead story, even though it's not part of GW's actual life events. Controversy about GW's work, it seems to me, is central to telling people about him. O'Dwyer generated a lot of heat (maybe not too much light) about the "contract" and its relationship to the Smithsonian's recognition of the "first flight"--recognition that O'Dwyer saw as an injustice.

I'm not urging that the current text about the controversy remain untouched or unshortened by any means (clearly, it needs more editing), but I think claims for GW (by O'Dwyer, Randolph, Kosch and maybe even the good folks at the GW museum in Germany), and the Smithsonian response, deserve decent space in the article. That might even include adding information to the article about exhibit space given to GW by the Smithsonian. As you say, the contract was "a matter involving the Smithsonian and the Wright Family heirs." Nevertheless, O'Dwyer (and perhaps Kosch, though I don't think I've seen anything explicit) made the "contract" an important issue in the pro-Whitehead campaign, which enlarged the signficance of the contract beyond its original purpose. In effect, those researchers made the contract part of the "latter-day" GW story. I think the GW article should give an appropriate amount of attention to those developments. "Appropriate," of course, can be debated.

Advocates for other "first flight" claimants have not seized on the "contract" so vigorously and publicly, so it's not necessary to include anything about the contract in articles about other aviation pioneers. (Although--going from memory now--I think there have been occasional comments about the contract in Wikipedia by supporters of Santos Dumont and Vuia, and possibly Pearse as well. There have been major "edit wars" in some of those articles regarding primacy of the Wright brothers. I've been a combatant...)

I agree that O'Dwyer's publicizing the contract "is not central to the G.W. story," but it does play a role in the story. I'm certainly not averse to editing and shortening some of the text on this issue, especially the oversize "blockquotes".

I don't know if the "contract" deserves its own article, but a "History by Contract" article already exists, (it's far from perfect) and would be a suitable place to add information about the contract.

I've been a bit reluctant to hack away at some of the overdone text on these issues for reasons you may be able to guess. I think, collaboratively, we can work toward more balanced and streamlined text on the issues. DonFB (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Crane

Carroll, I hope you'll add info about Crane's reversal on the matter. About ten years later, I believe it was. You mentioned his playing "both sides" in an earlier Discussion comment. DonFB (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will. While Prof. Crane was serious about his work, he undercut his argument by not mentioning his earlier view in his article of 11 years later.

Carroll F. Gray (talk)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Carroll F. Gray (talk • contribs) 06:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed edits

Carroll F. Gray has shown a strong bias about Whitehead, both here on the discussion page and on his own web site. He believes that Whitehead never made any real flights, only a few short hops. It also shows in his edits of the article. He is also confused about his role, first writing that he will not make any edits himself, only suggest changes on the discussion page, than he flip-flops and starts making edits to the article. Much of his changes are original research, I can't see his references for most of his changes. First example: "He did most of his aviation work from about 1897 to 1911", no reference there.

Note that sources say he had built 50 airplanes before nr 21, the first 30 were not numbered. To have time for all these experiments it seems more likely that he started 1895 rather than 1897.

Changes he has made and changes he suggests shows that he has not been present and seen how and why parts of the article have developed into what it was before his changes and what it is now.

For example, an article about Whitehead can not be complete without telling the story about the research which has been done to restore awareness of him from a position when he was totally forgotten and unknown, and the resistance to that work which has been done by the Smithsonian, Orville Wright and many others. For example the Smithsonian denied ever having heard of him, until it was discovered that they had even published a book where he is mentioned many times. Langley avoided direct contact with Whitehead and instead he sent an assistant to investigate Whitehead's plane. L Jakab lied and said that his wife was never told about his flights, even though an interview showed that he told her about it August 14 1901. Totally silly arguments have been used to discredit him, like the idea that the last word on the issue should be left to his wife who never witnessed any of his flights. And the person who invented that silly idea is now here and is changing the article.

The Smithsonian is a very respected institution and it is important to show how devious they have behaved, both when it comes to Whitehead directly and when it comes to the contract, which was not directed directly towards Whitehead, but most likely has had a big importance in the issue of Whitehead.

I don't think we know the date his brother John saw the wingbending mechanism, so it should not be used as if it existed August 14 1901. It can have been added later and witnessed later.

In the source material we can read about a rudder, which was used together with changing the speed of one propeller in Januari 1902. We can not see a rudder, in the modern meaning of a rudder, in the pictures, but it is possible that Whitehead, who had studied how birds steer, had built in a function for bending the tail of the airplane, and that was what he called the rudder. Birds use the tail in that way to balance and steer in the air. So the propeller speed and the wingbending, which may have been incorporated after August 14 1901, where not the only two mechanisms for steering he had thought of, beside changing his bodyweight.

The quote: "Aviation researchers Louis Chmiel and Nick Engler dismiss Whitehead's work and its influence even if new evidence shows that he flew before the Wright brothers: "While Whitehead believers insist that he was first to fly, no one claims that his work had any effect on early aviation or the development of aeronautic science. Even if someone someday produces a photo of No. 21 in flight on August 14, 1901, it will be nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation."[44]" which has now mysteriously been moved from the beginning of the section Significance to the end of that section, was inserted in a sneaky way into another section, to discredit Whitehead, and the rest of the Significance section was written to show that his work actually had a significance.

That quote which has now been moved to the end of the section, probably to turn the issue around and instead of being the reason for the rest of that section which showed that it was wrong now has been, in a sneaky way, moved to the end of the section, to serve as a response to the part which was a response to that quote. I protest against the first inclusion of that quote because it was an irrelevant and sneaky attempt to diminish Whitehead's significance, and I protest even more to the move of that quote to the end of the section, as it shows that the person who moved it is still trying to use sneaky ways to diminish Whitehead's significance. I suggest that this quote should simply be deleted from the article, because if what more than 25 witnesses and a reporter has told us is true he was actually the first inventor and pilot of the first motorized airplane, and sneaky attempts like these to rob him of this honor or diminish his role in the history of aviation should not be accepted in a fairminded article about him. Roger491127 (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

1) Roger, I have said before and apparently I should say again that I am not anti-Whitehead. If I display any bias, please alert me to it, as has DonFB. I appreciate that - you have my welcome to do just that. You might also accept that I can do that for you, as well.

I had planned, initially, to offer my own research to you and DonFB for inclusion in the G.W. article and so did not wish to do edits. I have since decided that the article needs attention - both in content and style. SO, I have ceased to offer my own research and am now editing. I stated I was going to do this, above. I know it is difficult to read everything, but I did alert you and DonFB to this change.

2) "He did most of his aviation work from about 1897 to 1911" was a correction from "He did most of his aviation work from about 1895 to 1911" Please, tell me, what "aviation work" did he do in 1895 ? We know he built his first flapping winglet glider in Boston in 1987, so I used that as the beginning of his aviation work.

3) There is no reason I have seen to believe that G.W. built "50 airplanes before nr 21, the first 30 were not numbered." and there are sources that state that he numbered all his aerial machines. Where is your citation for saying he built "50 airplanes" before Nr. 21 ?

4) I have not been here as long as you have. I am doing my very best to be fair to G.W. but I will not agree to any inflation of his work or any exaggerated claims stated as true. As I have said repeatedly, I believe he deserves recognition for his dedicated work over years under very difficult circumstances, and the fact that he had a U.S. Patent on his and successful Large Albatross glider sets him apart form a multitude of other aerial experimenters.

5) Yes, I am here and yes, I am doing what it supposed to be done - trying to remove bias and to give a neutral, fair, verifiable and sourced account of G.W.'s work. I have discussed, at length, the other points you repeat, here, in other places in our previous discussions. Also, I am here doing this only because you, Roger, e-mailed me.

6) When you say something like the Smithsonian has been "devious" I can only shake my head in amazement.

7) We know the year John Whitehead stated what he did about the "wing bending" mechanism, just as we know the year G.W. said that "I had no means of steering around them by using the machinery."

8) The problem with what you say, Roger, is that you are speculating.

9) I did not move the Chmiel/Engler section.

10) I can only speak for myself, but I have done nothing "sneaky" here. Roger, is it that difficult to accept that the statements of people who dismiss the claims made about G.W. deserve a place in the article ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "sneaky attempts like these to rob him of this honor" -- I think this quote represents an unfair and unbalanced approach to writing an article about disputed events. I would say the writer of this quote has made up his mind about the disputed events and does not want to allow opposite opinions from sources to be included in the article. An article is not "fairminded" if one editor can arbitrarily exclude sourced opinions he does not agree with. This article, like any other in Wikipedia, should continue to include differing opinions from reliable sources about its subject. DonFB (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Junius Harworth

The Junius Harworth picture should stay in the article, because he is the source of several important quotes, he was the most longstanding helper to Whitehead and he is the best example of how several helpers of Whitehead got a good education from him and got good employments because of that education. Roger491127 (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If the J. Harworth photo is kept, why not one of S. Randolph or Wm. J. O'dwyer or Wilbur or Orville Wright or Richard Howell or S.Y. Beach or Louise Tuba Whitehead ? As far as I can see, the J. Harworth photo adds nothing informative to the article. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Carroll F Gray's web site

"The policy refers to "a reliable publication," but I think that would extend to a "reliable" website (but that's just my opinion)"

His web site can hardly be referred to as "a reliable publication", it has not been used by any other publication, and it is obviously very biased. Roger491127 (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DonFB, i see you have restored the quote at the end of the Significance section. Was it you who moved it to the end of that section too, so it looks like a rebuttal of the text which was earlier a rebuttal of that quote when it was placed at the beginning of that section? Was it also you who included it into the article to begin with?

It would be good to involve Douglas S Malan in the discussions. I quoted, as well as I could remember, his earlier web page in another discussion with this sentence: "Someone said that the main contribution the Wright brothers did to the development of airplanes in USA was to delay the development with all their litigations and patent fights, and the result of this was that allied pilots, including american pilots, during world war 1 had to use european airplanes because there were no american planes available. Roger491127 (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed the editor who originally added the Engler quotation, and I also rewrote the section where it appears. A section of a Wikipedia article should not be written as a "rebuttal" of its own information. A section, and an article, should simply be written so its information, including different sourced opinions, is easy to understand. A Wikipedia article, or any section in it, should not be written to "prove" a point. Perhaps the Significance section should begin with the sentence: "Whitehead's work attracted interest from other people in the budding industry, but opinions have varied over the significance of his work." DonFB (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DonFB's suggestion for an opening sentence to the Significance section.

My flyingmachines.org web site has been cited in numerous publications (hardback books and softcover books), by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the Centennial of Flight, and numerous web sites. I will not engage in some sideline argument over the worth or value of my web site.

Roger, this is not combat. I know combat, and this is not it.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to donfb

Quote: "Quote: "sneaky attempts like these to rob him of this honor" -- I think this quote represents an unfair and unbalanced approach to writing an article about disputed events. I would say the writer of this quote has made up his mind about the disputed events and does not want to allow opposite opinions from sources to be included in the article. An article is not "fairminded" if one editor can arbitrarily exclude sourced opinions he does not agree with. This article, like any other in Wikipedia, should continue to include differing opinions from reliable sources about its subject. DonFB (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)"

I have not made up my mind completely, but I agree with what Air Enthusiast magazine wrote in January 1988:

"The evidence amassed in his favour strongly indicates that, beyond reasonable doubt, the first fully controlled, powered flight that was more than a test "hop", witnessed by a member of the press, took place on 14 August 1901 near Bridgeport, Connecticut. For this assertion to be conclusively disproved, the Smithsonian must do much more than pronounce him a hoax while wilfully turning a blind eye to all the affidavits, letters, tape recorded interviews and newspaper clippings which attest to Weisskopf's genius."[9]

A lot of other people have also drawn a similar conclusion, the people in Connecticut who pronounced him the first flyer in Connecticut, "In 1968 the state of Connecticut officially recognized Whitehead as "Father of Connecticut Aviation".[29]", the people at the Discovery Channel who decided to make a program about him (which was what drew my attention to this issue a couple of years ago), and many others.

I think this article has been spindoctored by people who want to diminish Whitehead's achievements. Some typical examples are the introduction of the quote:

Aviation researchers Louis Chmiel and Nick Engler dismiss Whitehead's work and its influence even if new evidence shows that he flew before the Wright brothers:

"While Whitehead believers insist that he was first to fly, no one claims that his work had any effect on early aviation or the development of aeronautic science. Even if someone someday produces a photo of No. 21 in flight on August 14, 1901, it will be nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation."[44]" and the moving of it to the end of the section it was earlier the beginning of.

You, donfb, has said that nobody can remove properly sourced quotes no matter how irrelevant I think they are. I am going to take you up on that and reinsert properly sourced quotes which you have deleted. I thought the introduction of the quotes in the Determination section were irrelevant but as you refused to remove them I added one more quote about the determination of Wilbur which showed that his determination was certainly not as strong as the first quote indicated.

Now you have moved the quotes from the determination section into another part of the article, and you removed the quote I had added, which was very relevant re Wilbur's determination. I will restore that quote, and you can not, according to your own statement, remove it, because it is relevant to the determination of Wilbur and it is properly sourced. Roger491127 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, you keep saying that G.W. made "the first fully controlled, powered flight that was more than a test 'hop'" but as I explain in "A Problem For Supporters of G.W.'s 'Flight' of 14 August 1901" above, that is an impossibility. I am not going to try to argue the logic of it (this isn't the place for that, agreed), but how can you repeat that assertion knowing that the data which resulted from the "pro-Whitehead" test flights, and G.W.'s own words, prove that the flights could not have happened ? And... yes, I will freely admit, this is the result of my original research and an argument I take both credit and blame for.

Again, Roger, isn't making the Wikipedia article about G.W. an accurate, sourced and balanced statement of his aeronautical experimentation the important thing to do ? Isn't that our task ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you'll make up your mind some time. Whether you personally agree or disagree with the Air Enthusiast article is not relevant to the content of this Wikipedia article. I certainly don't care at all if you agree or disagree with Air Enthusiast. Your personal opinion about the events does not matter to the article. You know it does not matter. Your personal opinion about the events is irrelevant to the article. You know that. What matters is writing the article based only on reliable sources, not your opinion, or any other editor's opinion about the events. You know that. This article does not exist to help you give the "honor" to Whitehead that you believe he deserves, as you said in another comment. I don't care if you think history has "dishonored" Whitehead. Your opinion about his "honor" is irrelevant to the article. You know that.

What examples of 'spindoctoring' for and against Whitehead do you find in the article? Give examples. Keep in mind that reliable sources can have their own opinions, and those opinions, on both sides of the controversy, can be used in the article. How would you write the introduction to the quote by Chmiel and Engler?

I know that in the past you inserted material in the article that was simply your opinion and your deductions about the events, not well-sourced information. I know that a number of times you inserted material which stated certain events as fact with no citations given. That's where spin-doctoring has occurred, repeatedly. I removed such material, and I remember that another editor challenged an entire Section of material you added in an obvious attempt at spin-doctoring, violating the most basic and clear Wikipedia rules on article Neutrality. Rules that you understand, while at the same time continuing your completely wrongheaded and destructive crusade to promote your personal Point of View in the article.

I have not said well-sourced quotes cannot be removed if they are irrelevant. That's your imagination working. The Wilbur-Whitehead quotes are a brief look into the similarity of their deep passion to build flying machines, not a description of their years-long struggles. Adding another quote from only one of the men is an obvious attempt at spindoctoring. Why would you do that? DonFB (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 12

This is the source:

http://bridgeport.ct.schoolwebpages.com/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=21663

Shouldn't it be more openly and clearly stated that this source is the Bridgeport High School web site ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It should. The inconsistent and in some cases poor formatting of footnotes in this article (for which I share blame), is a source of dismay to me. At some point, the dedicated and selfless editors of this article should crank up their energy and do the footnotes justice. (Needless to say, the site has extensive guidelines and advice on how to use proper formatting.) As far as this particular source is concerned, I am willing to accept it, although it does show its own signs of bias. Better footnote formatting to clearly show the source can offer the reader something of an unstated "disclaimer." (My opinion on the issue; I don't know if such a concept can be found in the Guidelines/Rules.) DonFB (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing article link

Carroll, sometimes an editor will add brackets to create a link to a Wiki article which does not yet exist. This is acceptable, although it obviously should be done within reason. The idea is to encourage other editor(s) to create a new article which the first editor may have thought should exist about the topic, but did not have time or knowledge to create herself. (No worry, though, I don't think it's necessary to restore the link for airplane #22.) DonFB (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, since the unlinked un-sourced item was from Aug 2009 it seemed a year was sufficient time to find a source and then make a link. Since that hadn't happen, I deleted it. Wouldn't it be better to not add material unless a source citation is at hand ?

Thanks, Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we're talking about two different things. I'm not referring to the "citation needed" item which you acted upon appropriately, especially given the time elapsed. I'm talking about an internal link that you deleted (harmlessly) to a non-existent Wikipedia article called, "Airplane 22" (or whatever it said exactly). Just FYI, some editors will create an internal link to a name, or a term, or some topic mentioned in an article—a topic which they think should become a new article, but which does not yet exist in Wikipedia. The information in one Wikipedia article which is linked in the text of another Wiki article is not considered a "source" for the article where the link exists. A link to an uncreated article simply amounts to a "suggestion" to anyone sufficiently interested in the topic to create a new article about it. If no one does that, even for an extended period of time, no harm is done to the "host" article, nor does the link, in and of itself, mean that an editor added information to the host article without a source. Elsewhere in this and every other article, you will see various words, names and so forth (some quite trivial) linked in the host article. The technique is just meant to offer the reader more information on a related topic, if they care to click on it. But again, the linked topic should not be construed as a "source" for the host article. It is just another article which a reader may decide, or not, to read. So if you see a link to a non-existent Wikipedia article, you need not delete the linkage (unless the link is vandalous or otherwise absurd.) Er, am I making sense? DonFB (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do make sense. Thanks, again Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Boiling it down

Ack...I got a headache reading through the new and old Dickie material about the blasted boiler/engine/hose, etc.etc. Carroll, I wonder if you could summarize here in the Discussion what all the verbiage means, as you understand it. I think it would be useful to condense (so to speak) at least some of this part of the controversy into plain, unquoted, easy-to-follow English, with the appropriate citations. We could polish the language here before putting it into the article, hopefully replacing at least some of the convoluted text in the article. Are you amenable, or do you feel that the (painfully) detailed explanations are indispensable?

Helpful would be something generally along the lines of:

According to O'Dwyer, Dickie said the engine was........

But the Dickie affadavit shows that........

(I don't even know if the above is vaguely correct, but the wording suggests the simplification that I think would be good.) DonFB (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the tortured language.

The point is O'Dwyer and others use the "boiler" to discredit Dickie, and in particular, O'Dwyer erroneously states that Dickie changed his statement at some later time and then concludes that makes Dickie's affidavit of little value.

Since the Dickie affidavit existed in 1937 with those supposedly "later" changes clearly in evidence in 1937, the changes weren't made "later" and that part of O'Dwyer's argument comes completely unglued.

I wonder what the best way to handle such a thing really is. Here we have a "source" saying something, making an argument, that doesn't hold up to close view. Should that argument then be removed from the article or should the matter be explained for the article's readers?

Since discrediting Dickie is a major point to those making a case on behalf of G.W. I think it deserves some mention and explanation.

Here's a simplified re-write:

________

To discredit Dickie, O'Dwyer states that Dickie made "later admissions" about the steam boiler. However, Dickie's 1937 affidavit contains a clear handwritten statement that the boiler was not installed in the machine, but fed steam to an onboard engine. In short, there were no "later admissions" about this matter, and O'Dwyer mistakenly states there were.

Similarly, Dickie says that the distance between propellers was 11 ft. O'Dwyer uses this to conclude that Dickie "cannot have been acquainted with that aeroplane." - meaning the No. 21. However, the distance between the propellers of the 1910 Whitehead Large Albatross-type engine-powered biplane was 11 ft. - Dickie was referring to the 1910 aeroplane. [source: S. Randolph's "Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead, 1937, p. 87]

________

Feel free to suggest changes. I will say that I softened this by saying "O'Dwyer mistakenly states there were" - whereas I am of the opinion that O'Dwyer possibly does this intentionally. I have found a number of examples of such "mistakes" by O'Dwyer, all bearing on G.W.'s critics.

The paragraph which precedes mine is jumbled and thick also. We could simplify that one to better effect, also.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree that the issue should not be stricken from the article, just streamlined. I'll bear down a little more on the material and take a shot at rewriting/paraphrasing the block quote which precedes your new text in the article and blend in your rewrite here. (But not tonight...) My lament about the convolutions applies as much, or more, to the block quote that was already present in the article. To be sure I understand: your statement that the Dickie handwriting is not "later" is because it is visible in the image shown in the Randolph book, itself published in 1937? Also, not to put too fine a point on it, does Randolph explicitly say Dickie was referring to the Albatross when he talked about propeller separation, or is that her assumption?

I may appear overly exacting in the way I prefer to word some of these "touchy" issues. (My approach has changed greatly from my first days editing on the site, when I tossed around editorial comments with reckless abandon.) I'm motivated by some good discussions I've read on the site about using neutral language, and also by my own somewhat obsessive insistence in previous discussions about this particular article on the necessity for being objective and neutral. You might find it surprising, even humorous, that there are recommendations in the site's Guidelines that words like "however" be avoided, because a word like that implies less value to one thing and more value to another. I try simply to state the conflicting information (with citations) while avoiding terms like "mistake" or "error"--unless those words can actually be attributed to a source. I have truly embraced the idea that Wikipedia has no "voice" of its own, but is only a conduit for information, and opinions, reliably sourced, of others. Of course, that ideal is not universally honored in the articles. DonFB (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DonFB, I'm trying to get the hang of this, thanks for your patience. My urges, which I have been trying to suppress, are to lay out the counter argument and let Roger or others handle the proponent position, but that is not appropriate here. This isn't a debate - that much I have finally understood.

I use "however" in the sense of "on the other hand" but I will cut it. One thing (I am re-reading "History by Contract") I have yet to find in O'Dwyer's narrative is what the various numbered photos shown to people were actually of. It would have been nice to have that series available to review. Perhaps it will be found in the pages yet unread.

I plan to post my published Whitehead article and perhaps someone will find it and choose to add some of my points to this article.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No criticism intended, just info and guidance. I'm sure you can still use "however" sometimes without the Wikipedia police closing in; just mentioned that specific example to give a sense of how the Wiki flame-keepers (which is not a tiny group of staff, but many contributors who develop policies collaboratively and write the Guideline pages the way articles are written--lots of changes, lots of debates) have carefully considered matters of writing style. Leave a note here when your article goes up, and where it can be found. DonFB (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble ftp'ing to my sites, so if you'll send me an e-mail I'll send the text of my article to you. I have Roger's e-mail from when he first contacted me. cfgrayATmacDOTcom Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Email

also, please note: I'm having trouble ftp'ing to my sites, so if you'll send me an e-mail I'll send the text of my article to you. I have Roger's e-mail from when he first contacted me. cfgrayATmacDOTcom Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to read it, but it will need to be publicly posted as a "reliable" source before it can be used for article citations. If you want, you can send email by clicking my moniker DonFB, which will take you to my (blank) User Page. On the left side, in the Toolbox section, there is a link, "Email this user". DonFB (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Once I can ftp again, I'll post images of the article so it can be cited from a site, but I wanted to get the text to you and Roger J. to review. I've sent the article to you as plain text via the toolbox e-mail link. The citation for the published article is: WW1 AERO, The Journal Of The Early Aeroplane #183, Feb. 2004, pp. 5-22, "Understanding Gustave Whitehead's Aerial Adventures," by Carroll F. Gray Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment tone

I posted the following on the Wikipedia Aviation Timeline Discussion page, but will take the liberty of doing so here, too.

Isn't there a Wikipedia guideline against character assassination such as indulged in by Roger J., when he calls Dr. Peter Jakab a "a proven liar and manipulator of history" ? What sanction is there (is there any ?) for an editor behaving like this, casting personal insults and making libelous statements about a person ? I would like to know. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Whitehead's "Progress"

Not obsessing over this for a citation, but I am curious; how do we know GW owned and read Progress In Flying Machines? DonFB (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We know becase we're told so in "History by Contract," p.94, O'Dwyer and Randolph, 1978, (writing of the Wrights and G.W.) "They differed when it came to the type of craft configuration found mots suitable. Both of them did begin with biplane surfaces, and the Wrights continued with biplanes, while whitehead devoured the advice and interesting legacy of Count D'Esterno, which he found in Chanute's books, and used them." and "History by Contract," pp.254-255, O'Dwyer and Randolph, 1978, which displays images of books owned by G.W., with penciled notes on inside rear cover of his copy of "Progress in Flying Mchines."

As for the newest re-wording of the O'Dwyer/Dickie matter, I think the current wording doesn't quite say what is to be said, which is that what Dickie had to say in his 1937 affidavit was not changed through "later admissions." O'Dwyer's charge against Dickie therefore fails to hold up. Here is how I would restate what you've written:

__________

The article also reported that after O'Dwyer interviewed Dickie in the 1960s, O'Dwyer believed that Dickie's 1937 affidavit had "little value," because of Dickie's supposed "later admissions" in the interview that a boiler Dickie saw was located on the ground and was used to send steam to operate the machinery in the airplane. In the original 1937 typed affidavit there is a handwritten statement by Dickie that the boiler was not installed in the aircraft, but fed steam to an onboard engine and that it would have been "impossible" for the "plane" to carry the boiler - which is consistent with what Dickie told O'Dwyer in the 1960's interview, not a later admission.

__________

For what it is worth, my hypothesis about all this is that Dickie was looking at a photo of the 1909 Whitehead-Beach aeroplane, while O'Dwyer was asking about the No. 21. When Dickie's comments didn't square with the No. 21 and Dickie began to discuss the heavy boiler on the ground, O'Dwyer ended up believing Dickie's 1937 affidavit had "little value." In short, "cross-talk."

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

About the machine Dickie witnessed about

The machine Dickie witnessed about was not a boat motor, as far as I have read about it. It was a very big machine used to rotate a tethered airplane around in a circle, to test its aerodynamic properties. It served the same purpose as a wind tunnel. I think the description of it which is now deleted made that clear. Roger491127 (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Next reply to Carroll F. Gray's article

"Perhaps the most interesting and telling portion of Gustave Whitehead's letter involves his second ÒflightÓ on August 14, 1901. He tells us that ÒThe duration of the flight was 1 1/2 minutes and the distance flown was 2,904 feet.Ó (See ÒNotesÓ at end of article) This allows us to make a close estimate of his speed, which would have been 22 m.p.h."... "series of tests was the conclusion that take-off of WhiteheadÕs monoplane would occur at a Òcalculated flying speed of 52 kmhÓ (32.31 m.p.h.), while sustained flight would require a speed of at least 49 kmh (30.447 m.p.h.). This places WhiteheadÕs citation of the time aloft and distance traveled on his second ÒflightÓ of August 14, 1901, in a difficult light, for it means that his No. 21 monoplane could almost certainly not have flown that day, at only 22 m.p.h."

Did Whitehead really say that "the distance flown was 2,904 feet", with 4 decimals? Doesn't sound like something a technical person would say, it is impossible and unnecessary to measure a flight distance with such precision, and inconsistent with the 2 decimal number for the flight time, 1.5 minutes, if it's even 2 decimals. 1 minute and a half sounds like a number with little precision. If he had said 1 minute and 29 seconds there would be a number showing precision, but one and a half minute can mean anything between 1 and 2 minutes. First we need to consider how accurately he measured the time and distance and how faulty those numbers could have been. Then we need to consider factors like the wind, in a headwind of 10 mph the real speed through air is 22 plus 10 mph, = 32 mph. If his design and motor-strength and propeller can be up to 20% different than the modern time tests this could mean a lot in the results. Let me remind you that a flying wing parachute today can lift off at speeds like 1-3 mph, driven only by a walking person.

When all is considered we should not take such numbers so literally and they can not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Whitehead really flew. When we add the witnesses to the picture it becomes very likely that he really flew, no matter what the numbers in this isolated case say.

And another thing, to say that he could have hopped short stretches over and over again on a water surface is a physical impossibility. He did not know that to start an airplane from water you need a V-shaped hull with a cut off V-shaped point exactly placed under the aerodynamical center of the airplane. With a lifeboat shaped hull he could never have lifted off from the water surface.

About canvas, are you sure that the person who used that word was talking about the wings? He could have talked about a wooden lifeboat covered with canvas and painted, to make it watertight. Whitehead himself said that the wings were made of finest silk. Roger491127 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I am sorry that the odd character keeps popping up in place of an apostrophe - I see that I sent it in .rtf and not plain text, as I had meant to, hoping that sort of thing wouldn't happen. To make it better, I will send it to you as plain text, which I meant to do, anyway.

As for the length cited by Whitehead, he wrote in German "Distanz 2800 Fuss" which equals 2,904 ft. (1 German Fuss equals 1.037 feet) - which I state in the note at the end of the article. Whether the distance Whitehead claims was more or less than approximately 2,900 ft., it still means that the machine could not has taken off at the speed which Whitehead indicates - as proven by the tests conducted in Germany. the difference is significant, not minor - fully 1/3 more speed would be required. The take off speed cited in my article was taken from the tests in Germany.

I know from personal experience that a very minor chop in the water can toss a flat-bottomed boat out of the water. In this case, the flat bottomed boat-like fuselage would have also been pulled along by tractor propellers, so, you see, it is not the impossibility you believe it to be.

The person who used the word "canvas" was Gustave Whitehead's brother, John, who saw the actual machine, No. 21.

My article is six years old and there are a few minor changes I would now make if I were to rewrite it, including putting a date of 1897 (not 1895) on the flapping winglet biplane glider G.W. built in Boston, and making the length matter (expressed in feet) more clearly stated in the body of the translation that G.W. wrote "Distanz 2800 Fuss". However, the substance of my article would remain the same.

Please keep posting comments on my article.

Finally, please, either take down your awful comments (on the Aviation Timeline Discussion page) about Peter L. Jakab, or post an apology. Calling him a "proven liar" and a "manipulator of history" does no one any good, not even you. It undercuts your own argument to be saying nasty things like that about other people. It also violates the standard of Wikipedia "Civility" and could subject you to a report.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Dickie, condensed

I eliminated most the Air Enthusiast blockquote about Dickie. My revision boils it down to Dickie's denial of seeing the flight, and Air Enthusiast's report that says he looked at photos of another airplane, not the #21. I left out details of the boiler and the hose, etc., which did not seem especially cogent or relevant. If they are, the info, with a citation that explains the significance, can be restored. I also left out mention of the name of the airplane that Dickie evidently saw photos of. Likewise, with clear sourcing, that can be restored. For the moment, I deleted text about O'Dwyer and CAHA interviewing witness survivors. I'll put that into the Research section. I also will reduce or eliminate most of the blockquote about O'Dwyer's interview with Dickie, and replace it with a shorter description of the essentials. DonFB (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I just read your condensation of the Dickie paragraphs, very well stated, thanks. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I do see a bit of a problem with the revision I made. Your earlier text in the article says, "O'Dwyer states that Dickie made 'later admissions'". In my rewrite, I said, "O'Dwyer said Dickie's affidavit was unreliable, because Dickie made 'later' handwritten changes to it." In both cases, the footnoted source appears to be Randolph's 1937 book. But that long precedes the period when O'Dwyer was researching and commenting. What source can be cited for O'Dwyer's statement about Dickie's "later admissions"? Is it in History by Contract, or the 1960s Randolph book? DonFB (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is O'Dwyer's argument, which he is quoted making in the Air Enthusiast #35, January 1988, article. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything in Air Enthusiast about the handwritten additions to the Dickie affidavit, so I didn't write anything about that. In closely rereading that article and Dickie's affidavit, I got sucked into the boiler/engine business, so I added an explanation about that. Also, I hopefully clarified details of the controversy about the photographs Dickie looked at, and their relationship to his comments and the Number 21 airplane. DonFB (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What seemed would be a not-too-difficult rewrite became a nasty struggle between me and material that refused to be subdued. I think it ended up as long or longer than the original blockquote and stuffed with nearly all the same bloody boiler and handwriting details that I scoffed at. I hope it makes the necessary point. As may be apparent, I wrote it to avoid making an editorial and slightly argumentative statement along the lines of, "which is consistent...not a later admission." Yeh, I am bending over backward on this stuff, maybe even overdoing it. But, in this article especially, a little bit of editorializing can snowball out of control very quickly, so I'm holding my own writing to a very strict standard of neutrality. Even the statement that Air Enthusiast "suggested" Dickie "misunderstood" the design is a bit of an editorial leap with which I'm not comfortable, but there it is. (True, I might indulge myself occasionally with a slightly flippant flourish, like "slugging it out," but I see that as a mildly decorative touch of style, not a down and dirty issue of the article's factuality. And if somebody bounced that little flourish out of the article, I couldn't really object.) Anyway, please comment if this latest revision does or does not get the job done. One other thing: I'm not sure if the Stella Randolph citation for the image of the Dickie affidavit is correct regarding the page number. Please correct if it's not. DonFB (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a point which is difficult to make briefly, but this current wording does, and it is readable, unlike my first jab at it. I made one change, removing "Possibly" and leaving it as "Quoting." (Opinion alert...) It is as certain as anything can be that O'Dwyer is being quoted. Using "Possibly" introduces unnecessary doubt about this central element of O'Dwyer's attempt (unsuccessful in my opinion) to discredit Dickie, although many accept that Dickie was discredited. If you are uncomfortable with starting that sentence with "Quoting" then I would accept "Apparently quoting" as an alternative.

When we are confronted with an article such as this Air Enthusiast piece, it seems to me we have an obligation to (remain neutral, I know) not confuse or mislead our readers, by being overly cautious. If a fair reading of a paragraph indicates that some innuendo or suggestion is being made, that is fair game on which to comment. The alternative is to totally ignore it as not being subject to a neutral summary, but, that is not attractive, either... to suppress some central point because it is difficult to contend with.

All in all, it strikes me that the current wording is honest and not slanted and serves to express something of value to our readers - and, in a Wiki world, direct their attention to the matter and to the source so they can draw their own conclusions.

A side matter... I am tempted to write a non-Wiki article about this one item - O'Dwyer's discrediting of Dickie. In many ways, we can understand why O'Dwyer had to discredit Dickie, fairly or not - Dickie's statement that he was not present 14 August 1901 collapses much of the "Herald" story. By the way, I have yet to see a key to the photos which were shown those interviewed, which strikes me as a serious lapse, since the interviewees discuss photos by "#" - also, I have seen photo numbers in the 40's being referred to in the interviews - that is a considerable number of Whitehead photos to have at hand.

I am keeping my own archive of these changes.

The Randolph citation was fine except for the title - "The" is not part of the title, for some obscure reason.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

About my choice of words concerning Jakab and Carroll Gray

When Jakab said/wrote that Whitehead's wife had not heard about his flights August 14 1901 he was either aware of the fact that he was lying, as the 1940 interview with the wife clearly shows that he told her about it, or he was totally incompetent and did not know what he was talking about. And to even choose to use statements about his wife in the debate about if Whitehead flew or not was very sneaky to the point of consciously trying to manipulate history in an unfair way.

If Jakab prefers to be called totally incompetent and lacking logic, sound reasoning and education, or to be seen as somebody who is consciously trying to distort history by lying and introducing totally irrelevant statements is up to himself.

When Carroll Gray is writing that the last word on this issue should be left to his wife who never saw him fly Carroll Gray is either totally incompetent and lacking logic, sound reasoning and education, or he is consciously trying to distort history by introducing one of the dummest statements I have ever read. And to even choose to use statements about his wife in the debate about if Whitehead flew or not was very sneaky to the point of consciously trying to manipulate history in an unfair way.

If Carroll Gray prefers to be called totally incompetent and lacking logic, sound reasoning and education, or to be seen as somebody who is consciously trying to distort history by introducing such a stupid and totally irrelevant statement is up to himself.

We should all be aware of the very diverse level of education and lack of sound reasoning combined with very accurate knowledge in certain areas which exists in USA, as shown by people who know exactly how many touchdowns a certain american football player has scored during his career but not even being able to point out their own country on a world map and not being able to think clearly and the total lack of sound judgement many citizens can show. The cases of Jakab and Carroll Gray seem to be typical examples of such type of minds. When it comes to Carroll Gray it is obvious that he has read and studied a lot of documents, but it is also equally obvious that he displays a lack of logic and sound reasoning which is which is astounding to others but obviously he is totally unaware of it himself. He is honest and well read but totally unaware of his lack of logic and sound reasoning.

The above questioning "that the pen and ink drawing (not a "sketch") was done by Richard Howell" is yet another example of the strange workings of his mind, lacking logic and sound judgement, and relevancy. Roger491127 (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, do give more consideration to an apology for what you said about Peter Jakab.

As for me, I am here and can respond. This is hardly the place to be offering resumés, but since you felt it necessary to mock, I will tell you I entered university (on a physics scholarship) as a first year student with a declared major in Physics (one of only three permitted to do so) and was accepted in my second year into an accelerated PhD program in Astrophysics - I can handle calculus. In my first year I devised an experiment which successfully measured the mass of the earth. I can take off, fly and land a small airplane. As for my use of logic, I scored in the 99th percentile in three areas, reading comprehension, abstract reasoning and logic, from 7th grade through 12th. In my second year of high school (in 1963) I built a logic device which won a regional science fair. You mocked, and that is my reply.

As for the requirement to have a "V" shaped lower surface to break the surface tension of water to lift off, that is not required. A "step" on a flat-bottomed pontoon, for instance, will work perfectly well, though not as efficiently.

As for the supposed Howell drawing, extreme care has been given citations throughout the Whitehead Wiki Article, as it now stands, and I believe it is is only reasonable to ask how we know that pen and ink drawing was done by Howell. As far as I can tell, to say that is merely speculation. Can you cite any evidence that Howell did that drawing, beyond speculating that he did because he supposedly drew for his sports articles ? Howell passed away before he could be interviewed by Randolph or, so far as I know, anyone else.

What about the substance of my argument in my Aero article ? What do you think of my case that G.W> made hopping leaps, supported by wings, which he honestly believed were flights. The central point is that at that time (1901-1902) there was no agreed upon definition of what constituted a flight. Any sort of hop into the air under power and supported by wings might well have been honestly thought of a flight, back then. What do you think of this view ?

I am not going to respond to the ridiculous comments you made about the "USA" - beyond asking, why do you persists in being so self-defeating in your presentation of yourself and your arguments ?

Finally, Roger, are you familiar with the social phenomenon of the late 19th and early 20th centuries known as "Liars Clubs" ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Water surface liftoff

"I know from personal experience that a very minor chop in the water can toss a flat-bottomed boat out of the water. In this case, the flat bottomed boat-like fuselage would have also been pulled along by tractor propellers, so, you see, it is not the impossibility you believe it to be."

There are hydrodynamic scientific laws which regulate how fast a boat can move in water. Even if a boat can be airborn by being thrown off a wave for a second it can not reach a speed necessary for an airplane to lift off into the air and start flying. Much of your reasoning leads me to the conclusion that you can not have had much of a technical and scientific education. But please shock me completely by proving that you are a well qualified civil engineer educated at least for four years at a technical or scientific university like MIT, for example, if you can. That would blow me out of the water and send me flying into the air using only my arms as wings if that was true.Roger491127 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

See above.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not say in my article or here that G.W. lifted off (made a take off) the surface of Long Island Sound (assuming that G.W. did anything 17 January 1902 on Long Island Sound), I did not say he made a flight then, either... I said he might have made hops in the water which he considered to be flying. I do not believe there is any evidence to support the notion that G.W. made "flights" in our current meaning of that word. That does not make G.W. a liar, though, if his definition of a "flight" was different from our current one. As I say in my article, simply lifting off the ground and making short hops with wings extended and propellers turning, after running along a road with the wings folded in, could easily be thought of by most people in 1901 or 1902 as a flight.

I believe that much of the argument about whether or not G.W. made "flights" is muddled because different understandings and definition of what constitutes a "flight" are being used by various people. At least, that is my opinion, and while opinions are not entirely welcome here, there it is.

Two much greater problems exist for people, such as yourself, who wish to see G.W. credited with making the "first flight" in a modern usage of that term. They are 1) the technical data from the German testing of a No. 21 reproduction and G.W.'s own statements about time aloft and distance "flown" proves (in my opinion) that G.W. could not have flown on 14 August 1901 - and - 2) there is no evidence beyond G.W. own statements that No. 22 ever existed. You'll note that in my article I charitably allow that No. 22 did exist and deal with his purported 1902 flight as though No. 22 did exist - however, we only have G.W.'s word for that.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The lack of steering mechanisms August 14 1901

The article now gives the impression that the wingbending mechanism W's brother John witnessed about was present August 14 1901. But John arrived in Bridgeport sometime in October 1901 and witnessed that mechanism sometime in October, September, November or later in 1901, while Whitehead was in the process of transforming nr 21 into nr 22, trying out new mechanisms, replacing the hull, etc.. so there is no support for suggesting that it was present in August 14 1901.

The other mechanism for steering, slowing down one of the propellers, was not suitable for quick turns. It was suitable for slow turns, like the big circle of 11km over Long Island Sound in January 1902. So the article should not give the impression that he had mechanisms which he could have used to avoid the trees August 14 1901, he probably did not have such mechanisms, just as he himself stated. Roger491127 (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your logic seems reasonable, but I would not go as far as saying "there is no support for suggesting that it was present August 14 1901." There seems to be no actual evidence either way; there is only the speculation that it may not have been present because he said he could not use the "machinery" to steer on August 14. You might try editing the article to say that his letters to American Inventor magazine do not say if his wing-bending arrangement was present on the Number 21 aircraft during its reported flights, or whether he added the mechanism later. What is your source for the info John arrived in Bridgeport in October? DonFB (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To Carroll F. Gray: Thanks for sending me your 2004 article.

The first issue I want to comment: Quote from Whitehead: "The span amounts to 36 feet and the wing surface area (area of the bearing areas) is 450 square feet. The wings are strongly concave on their lower surfaces .."

Your comment:"One of the first things to notice is the statement that the total surface area of the Òbearing areas is 450 sq. ft., which has often been interpreted, erroneously, to be the total surface area of the two wings plus that of the tail surface. Whitehead's statement that the bearing areas are strongly concave on their lower surfaces eliminates the flat uncurved tail surface of Whitehead's flying apparatus from consideration as a bearing area."

Your logic is faulty here. that the bearing areas are strongly concave at the rear end of the wings does not exclude the possibility that the the tail is also a bearing area. On the contrary, as we know that the tail was horizontal it must have served as a bearing area. As Whitehead stated that the wings had a total area of 450 square feet the total bearing area was 450 square feet plus the area of the tail. But the curved rear of the wings caused a lot of lifting power, while the rest of the wings and the tail served as stabilizing horizontal bearing areas.

Whitehead did maybe not count the tail as an always bearing area, because one can imagine a situation when the plane's nose pointed down too much, Whitehead had to raise the tail, so the bearing power of the tail would decrease for a moment, causing the nose to rise. But if the tail was angled correctly from the beginning there would be no need for any adjustments, the tail would keep the plane horizontally at all times. Could the plane rise quickly, at a steep angle, into the air, while remaining in a horizontal pitch position? Yes, if the speed at that time was high enough, then the strongly curved bat-formed wings would give a lot of lifting power. If he then slowed down a little, he could fly horizontally, as the lifting power and the gravity were equal. If he increased the speed the plane would rise higher, if he slowed down the plane would sink, and all the time the pitch would stay horizontal because of the big horizontal tail area.

If he had placed the downward curve of the wings too far forward the stream of air forced downward would have caused the nose to rise, if he had placed it closer to the rear of the plane it would have lifted the tail and caused a nose-dive. Placed correctly it caused the plane to rise vertically without affecting the pitch of the plane. It was very stable pitch-wise.

(In stark contrast to the Wright brothers plane, which was almost impossible to control pitch-wise before September 1905 when they moved the front height rudder so far ahead of the plane that the pitch could be manually controlled because the reaction time became long enough for a human to control the pitch. But their plane wasn't stable pitch-wise even after September 1905. They could not let go of the controls, turn off the motor and watch the plane land itself safely. It was still not stable pitch-wise all by itself.) Roger491127 (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Roger. As you can read in the translation of the October 1901 "Illustrierte Aeronautische Mitteilungen" article, G.W. himself says "At each side, reinforced with bamboo and covered with silk, a wing ('bearing area') is arranged. The span amounts to 36 feet and the wing surface area ('area of the bearing areas') is 450 square feet." The quoted words within the parentheses is the literal German wording, written by G.W. As you can read, G.W. does not include the horizontal tail as a "bearing area."

Also, the primary problem with the front "rudder" (as the Wrights called it - we would now say a canard elevator) was that the pivot point was improperly located and so it required a careful touch to make it stay in position. During Wilbur Wright's last flight (his second of 17 December 1903 - the 4th event of that day) he was able to actively control and eliminate the unwanted pitching of the 1903 Flyer for some 2/3rd of it's 852 foot flight.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your response doesn't change anything of what I said. That "G.W. does not include the horizontal tail as a "bearing area." does not mean that it didn't serve as a bearing area, it just means that the total bearing area was 450 square feet plus the area of the tail. Roger491127 (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We agree on that, the total wing ("bearing area" is the literal translation of the German), not including tail, surface area cited by G.W. was 450 sq.ft., and any flat surface will provide some degree of lift at when positively inclined to a flow of air. The point is, the total wing (only) area as cited by G.W. was 450 sq.ft.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any learned scientific commentary to offer, but thanks for sending it. I've known about Whitehead for many years, but until I began editing here, all I knew was: his name, Connecticut and flew-before-the-Wright-brothers. I was always skeptical to the point of dismissive. Now, having spent so much time learning about him, I accept that he probably made some "hops". So, I find your new construct about what a "flight" means quite interesting and "creative". I do have some quibbles with the article, among them, your comment that discussion about GW has been "essentially static since 1937". That seems to overlook the Kosch and German experiments, not to mention everything O'Dwyer wrote and did. I wonder how you interpret GW's own statement (as shown in his letter to American Inventor, copied in the American GW website) that he achieved a "height" of 200 feet over L.I. Sound. The word is unequivocal; it does not appear to be an ambiguous measurement that might apply to distance. Your theory about his hopping-skipping flight offers a not-unreasonable middle ground for debaters to move toward, but the "height" question is another matter. In scanning over the article again, I don't see a mention of the issue.

Excellent, thought-provoking work. I like the term "hangar queens"; hadn't heard that before. DonFB (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DonFB, thanks for taking the time to read the article. (Multiple Opinions alert) I would probably reword my comment about the debate being static since 1937, to expand on what I was saying. It seems to me that since Stella Randolph's first book was published, the debate has not really moved ahead very much. The position that G.W. made flights prior to 17 December 1903 was set, the affidavits were taken and published, much of what G.W. wrote in letters to publications and much that was published in 1901-1911 about G.W. was located by Randolph. That is what I meant, but I should have given more attention to Andy Kosch's remarkable activities, well deserving of an article.

O'Dwyer certainly added material to the stack Randolph gave him and a he offered a slightly different perspective from hers, but his trumpeting of the "Agreement" between the Smithsonian Institution and the Wright Family heirs as a "Contract" that was somehow central to the Whitehead debate left me unimpressed. Likewise, to me, the tone of the myriad of accusations he made was too heated and uninformed. I've also found numerous examples of O'Dwyer making false or misleading statements, which hardly makes me feel warmer towards his work. The Dickie matter is one example... to be charitable, I have written it off to a grand misunderstanding and confusion, but my senses tell me something else was at work - that Dickie had to be dealt with in any way possible. I don't care for that approach one bit, assuming that is what O'Dwyer was doing, it certainly isn't history. There are also examples of suppression of uncomfortable truths by O'Dwyer (and even by Randolph, to a much lesser degree). That is not how history is developed or changed.

I spoke at length with Andy Kosch after I wrote the article and found him to be a sincere and humble man. We managed to have reasonable and informative conversations about G.W., something I wish that Roger and I could have more of.

Once my article was published, I took a great deal of heat from the "professionals" in aviation history for even suggesting that G.W. made hops which he, G.W., considered to be flights. So be it... there are those on each side of this matter who have closed minds and heated reactions.

As for reaching an altitude of 200 ft., I believe that G.W. was an irrepressible exaggerator, someone whose aspirations sometimes outstripped reality. It might be too fine a distinction, but I don't consider that overt lying. There are many people, some quite close to this issue, who have a difficult time differentiating between the truth of a matter and their desire that it be a certain way. In the 6 years since I wrote the G.W. article, I have come to believe that No. 22 might never have been built, and I had doubts when I wrote the article, but thought it would be best to deal with the matter of the 1902 event as though it had existed. I have a top and side drawing of the No. 22 which G.W. offered for publication. G.W.'s apparent willingness to exaggerate has created no end of trouble for those who have made claims on his behalf, but in this case he is in good company. Clement Ader also exaggerated his second attempt at flight. Herring probably did, as well. To me, to call Orville Wright's uncontrolled 12 second hop a "flight" (as Orville W. did) in the modern use of the word, is an exaggeration. Wilbur Wright's 852 ft. 59 sec. largely controlled event on 17 December 1903 was, pretty certainly, The First Flight in our meaning of that term. I wrote an article exploring this matter in some depth.

So, to simply cast what G.W. actually did out with the bundle of exaggerations and troubles and confusion and conflicts which have become embedded in his story is not sufficient. To call him names and write him off is bad history. So is making things up, exaggerating his work, inflating stories, suppressing information, and making unwarranted and inaccurately framed accusations at institutions and people. That is also, bad history.

Thanks for your appraisal of my article, I appreciate your keen reading and smart comments. I hope you do some writing beyond what you do here. You have a really good style, I think.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"...to call Orville Wright's uncontrolled 12 second hop a "flight" (as Orville W. did) in the modern use of the word, is an exaggeration...I wrote an article exploring this matter in some depth."

"The Five First Flights," which is great stuff and the source of a caption that I added to the pic of Wilbur's 59-sec flight in the Wright Flyer Wikipedia article back in July '08.

Is any of the negative reaction to your WWI Aero article online? Just curious to see what they had to say.

Thanks for the comment about my writing. In the past, I've done "industrial/trade" type of writing, including PR-type writing for the FAA, where I worked many moons ago. DonFB (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That brings a smile to my face to know you are familiar with "The First Five Flights" article. That one also caused a little flurry. The heated remarks that my G.W. article drew were all delivered directly to me. The publication of the G.W. piece caused a WW1 AERO board member (and a famed aviation historian) to quit the board. It seems he had merely skimmed the article and couldn't bear to actually read it and drew the firm yet false conclusion that I was saying G.W. flew before the Wrights. Nevertheless that article cost me some standing with some people. As I've said, merely giving G.W. any credit for anything causes some people to cringe and react. I can characterize the reaction by some people you would recognize were I to say their names as "disappointment." It didn't help that the editor of WW1 AERO headlined my article in very large type as "WHITEHEAD, CONT'D" - sort of in your face, it seemed to me - and done without my approval. My own title for the article was much smaller.

All that made for a strange reaction when I was confronted with Roger J.'s declaration that I was "anti-Whitehead."

Anyway, I hope my various articles have been received with an open mind by at least a few readers. The amount of time and effort involved in each went far beyond what I had anticipated.

Re-reading the G.W. Wikipedia article a bit ago I thought it was moving along really well.

I have a few friends who've done time at FAA - great stories.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. It pains me to say it, but information like that does go some way toward explaining why certain people in the anti-Wright camp (especially in other countries, as I've learned after spending a few years here) promulgate "conspiracy" theories about the Wrights and the Smithsonian and accuse the U.S. of "propaganda". (Undoubtedly, you're familiar with protestations of Santos Dumont supporters, with whom a few I've had severe tangles here.) Your experience does seem to indicate there is a kind of groupthink and maybe even a slight siege mentality in the U.S. aviation history establishment regarding the first flight issue. On the other hand, my very first posts here in Discussions (and edits in a few articles, including this one) show I held similarly intolerant views. My rhetoric about the subject has moderated noticeably since then, at the same time that my support of Wikipedia's sourcing and writing principles has become very strong. I too think this article is improving and may even become a good one. DonFB (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Drawing

Question - how do we know that the pen and ink drawing (not a "sketch") was done by Richard Howell?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a very strange question. It appeared in an article written by him in Bridgeport Herald and he always made his own drawings in his own articles, so it seems very likely that this drawing was also made by himself. How or why would anybody question that fact? Wouldn't anyone have noticed that this drawing was not in the same style and character of his other drawings if it was not made by himself? Roger491127 (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, you ask "Wouldn't anyone have noticed that this drawing was not in the same style and character of his other drawings if it was not made by himself?" Have you seen any other drawings which were done, without doubt, by Richard Howell ? Do you know of an example of another drawing, clearly done by him, which you could cite or show me ? I have a very good reason for inquiring about the drawing of No. 21 which accompanied the 18 August 1902 Herald article. Do you have any idea who drew the witches on broomsticks which also appear in that article ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

GW Article pdf

I've posted the GW WW1 Aero article at

http://www.flyingmachines.org/WhiteheadWW1AERO183CFGray.pdf

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

About Dr John B Crane who changed his view

I reinserted the quotes from 1937 from Dr John B Crane who obviously changed his view from 1936 to 1937, after doing some research, the person who removed these quotes can restore the references. Roger491127 (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A reply to Carroll F Gray

"I do not believe there is any evidence to support the notion that G.W. made "flights" in our current meaning of that word. That does not make G.W. a liar, though, if his definition of a "flight" was different from our current one."

Your belief that Whitehead never flew means that there must have been a very big conspiration, made up by very down-to-earth honest and naive poor working class people. So you mean that Whitehead was not only a big liar but also the organizer of a very big conspiration. Junius Harworth must have been one of the most advanced liars involved in this conspiration. Darvarich, Pruckner, Howell and Cellie were also central participators in this conspirators, as well as 20 or more citizens of Bridgeport.

Something strange about this conspiration is that practically all participators waited for over 30 years with giving their witness statements, and then only when interviewed by a young female aspiring author. Many who were part of this conspiration waited even longer, until they were very old and were approached by Major O'Dwyer in the 60'ies. Do you have any idea of how unlikely and strange such a conspiration theory sounds?

Junius Harworth testified about a flight August 14 1901 which was 1 and a half mile long, reaching 200 feet up in the air. Whitehead described the same flight, and I am pretty sure that Whitehead knew the difference between a flight and hopping along on the ground. He also knew the difference between a flight of 11km, when he saw his helpers as very small figures from a long distance as he said, and cruising around on the water surface like an air propeller driven pontoon boat. Roger491127 (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Question - how do we know that the pen and ink drawing (not a "sketch") was done by Richard Howell?"

Major O'Dwyer writes that he investigated Howell by reading many of his articles and looking at a lot of his drawings. He found Howell to be a very truthful, accurate and honest journalist, and that his drawings were always very accurate. Because he looked at many of Howells drawings he should have noticed if the style was different in the drawing of Whitehead's airplane. Why do you even question that it was Howell's drawing? It was published in his article and a copy of this issue has been preserved until today. Where do you come up with these ideas from? Roger491127 (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, I invite you to more closely read my WW1 AERO article regarding Gustave Whitehead. I quite clearly state that the whole notion of a conspiracy on the part of the affiants is difficult to believe, and I propose another way of seeing their affidavits.

Regarding the drawing with the 18 August 1901 Herald article... what you're saying is that we should accept O'Dwyer speculation that Richard Howell made that drawing. No, I want to see evidence. Apparently there isn't any.

Roger, I try to not indulge myself in making personal attacks and strongly suggest that you restrain yourself, as well. You might also read the Wikipedia guidelines for Civility and Tendentious Editing, and the consequences which might befall an editor who is found to be uncivil and or tendentious.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Carroll F Gray a historian?

In the trial of David Irving in Canada it was established very precisely by an international bunch of historians the criteria for calling a person a historian. And there is no way Carroll F Gray can be called a historian because he is very very far away from fulfilling any of those criteria. Is he employed as a professor in history at a university? Does he even hold a doctor's degree in history? Has he published a number of books which the majority of the world's recognized historians accept as faultless documents? Roger491127 (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the text about Carroll F Gray in the article, so the reader gets a more complete picture of his views. And I called him an amateur aviation historian. (better than not a historian at all, I think) I hope Carroll F Gray is satisfied with how his views are represented. Roger491127 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, this sort of childishness doesn't merit a response. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Caption Change on G. Whitehead web page

I have changed the caption of the drawing (on my flyingmachines.org G. Whitehead web page) of No. 21 which appears in the August 18, 1901, Bridgeport Sunday Herald article titled Flying.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A circular test runway

I have read two stories about circular test runways used or built by Whitehead. The first story was about Whitehead testing his airplane tethered to a center in the backyard of his home, before he bought land on Alvin street.

The other story was about Whitehead building a circular runway out of concrete and stones on a piece of land which was uninhabited. That construction took an end when somebody showed up and said that the land Whitehead built it on was his land, and he forbid Whitehead to continue the construction. So it became only a half-circle, which I saw marked out on a map over Bridgeport. On that map several places were marked which were related to Whitehead. I wonder why this map is not uploaded to creative commons.

Anyway, we have at least two indications that Whitehead tested airplanes in circular motion tethered to a center, a strong pole (as I imagined at first), or the very heavy boiler machine Dickie talked about.

How else could a heavy stationary machine give power to an airplane? Roger491127 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, you ask a good question about how a heavy steam boiler could supply steam to a steam engine aboard a light aeroplane, such as one like the Whitehead No. 21. Since you ask that, have you considered the implications for the 1899 Whitehead machine ? How would it have been possible for the 1899 Whitehead machine to have made use of an onboard boiler and steam engine ? Care to enlighten us on that very specific point ?

We are told that Louis Darvarich was stoking a boiler while riding with G.W.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously that must have been a lightweight steam-driven motor. Whitehead was an advanced engine builder so of course he could build a lightweight steam-driven engine. The machine Dickie described, on the other hand, was a very heavy machine, and if it was used as the anchor-point for tethered plane testing the weight was an advantage instead of a disadvantage. Roger491127 (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a comparison, Flugan used an 18 kg steam engine producing 10 hp so it actually had better power to weight ratio than the Wright engine (12 hp and 77.3 kg dry weight). // Liftarn (talk)

Birth

October 1874 (not January 1874) appears on the 1900 US Census as the month and year of G.W.'s birth.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We could tweak the article by footnoting his birthdate and give the info in the footnote. To your knowledge, do all the other "standard" sources say January? DonFB (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

S. Randolph's "The Story of Gustave Whitehead Before The Wrights Flew" cites the 1 Jan 1874 date. Since G.W. would have been the source of the Census info, it's fairly certain that October 1874 (day not specified on the Census) is correct. I'll look to see O'Dwyer/Randolph cites the January date, also. - I looked and don't see a citation in O'Dwyer/Randolph.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

News report on visit to Lilienthal

With such a long quotation attributed uncertainly to the Tribune, it really should have a citation (i.e., what source actually contains the quotation). I think the quotation could be introduced, then shortened and paraphrased, something like:

Some biographical articles about Whitehead say he visited aeronautical pioneer Otto Lilienthal. An 1897 newspaper article, possibly in the New York Tribune, said Whitehead "was for a long time a pupil and assistant" of Lilienthal's. The article said Whitehead claimed to have built and tested 42 "airships" in the preceding 12 years. [footnote] User:DonFB 03:30, 7 September 2010

I reworked yours a bit, and made the change. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

John B Crane

I restored the quotes of John B Crane which were deleted, because lack of references, this time I reinserted the references as well. Note the importance of John B Crane, because he had personally interviewed people in Bridgeport in 1937. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The text now is:

"Harvard professor John B. Crane summed up his investigation of Stella Randolph's Jan. 1935 Popular Aviation magazine article about Whitehead's aerial experiments in his Dec. 1936 National Aeronautic Magazine article "Did Whitehead Actually Fly?", writing that he "failed to find substantiation" for flights by Whitehead.

In 1937 Dr John B Crane had changed his mind about this issue. In Herald-Journal - Jan 19, 1937[26]: "Dr John B Crane urged congress today to determine who was America's first aviator." "There are several people still living in Bridgeport" said Dr Crane, "who testified to me under oath that they had seen Whitehead make flights along the streets of Bridgeport in the early 1900's." And in Reading Eagle - Jan 18, 1937".[27] : Dr John B Crane: "One former resident of the city, Junius Harworth, now an engineer of a motor car company in Detroit (Packard), testified that he had personally witnessed a 1½ mile airplane flight made by Whitehead on August 14, 1901, more than two years before the Wright brothers made their flight."

In 1949 Crane repeated his position of 1937 and supported the claim of Whitehead flights in his article, "Early Airplane Flights Before the Wrights," in Air Affairs. His article, supporting the claims, did not mention the earlier one in 1936, disputing them.[28]"

I corrected the year of his first article, from 1935 to 1936, and rewrote the last sentence so it makes more sense in the light of the text before it. Roger491127 (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Carroll Gray

The text about Carroll Gray now reads:

Aviation historian Carroll Gray commented:

"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."[33]

On the same webpage, the drawing (believed by some to be by Richard Howell) which appears in the August 18, 1901, Sunday Herald artcle is captioned, "Imaginative Drawing Of Gustave Whitehead Aloft In His Whitehead #21." Carroll Gray: "Nether the artist of that drawing nor of the drawing of witches on broomsticks which appears across the top of that article is identified."

Note that I changed the last sentence so the last sentence is clearly attributed to Carroll Gray, so the reader understands what kind of genius he is. Before this change it looked like wikipedia says that "Nether the artist of that drawing nor of the drawing of witches on broomsticks which appears across the top of that article is identified." I just added "Carroll Gray:" before the sentence. Roger491127 (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Map

I found the map, it is at: http://gustavewhitehead.org/photo_gallery/a_map_of_whiteheads_life_in.html it shows the "circular runway", marked C, a few blocks below Whitehead's home on Pine street. Maybe I was wrong before, about it not being completed, the C symbol looks like an unfinished circle. It was more than a year since I saw this map the last time. Roger491127 (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That map, which was taken from S. Randolph's Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead, 1937, p.41, also states that at location "B" photographs were taken of No. 21 and No.22. Not a single photograph of No. 22 has appeared.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Popular Aviation 1937

From the German wikipedia article about GW: "Ein Bericht der Popular Aviation von 1937 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania berichtet von einen Motorflug von etwa 1,6 km Länge mit einem dampfgetriebenen Flugzeug mit zwei Mann Besatzung (Pilot und Heizer), der mangels Möglichkeit zur Steuerung des Flugzeugs durch Aufprall auf eine Hauswand endete."

It means that the magazine Popular Aviation in 1937 had a story about the Pittsburgh 1899 flight, which was 1 mile 1,6 km long. I wonder if anybody in USA can locate that article? Roger491127 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The 1937 Popular Aviation article was related to the publication of S. Randolph's book Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead. The 1935 Popular Aviation article is well known.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wm J. O'Dwyer - Whitehead Interview Transcripts

The O'Dwyer collection does not contain tape recorded interviews, only transcripts of interviews. The O'Dwyer/James Dickie transcript, which would be expected to be included, is absent, with no indication that a transcript was ever prepared of that interview, assuming that interview happened.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is the collection? Roger491127 (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, Roger, your endless mocking and generally ill-tempered attitude leaves me with absolutely no desire to assist you with anything. I found the collection and so can you. Let's concentrate on putting the G.W. Wikipedia page into shape.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Stella Randolph Collection

I am informed that S. Randolph restricted access to her collection to those she gave written permission. Consequently, since her death, her files cannot be accessed at all - the collection is closed to everyone.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about the O'Dwyer collection. Which I actually have found an index of, a list of what it contains. The pdf file I found begins like this:

O�Dwyer/Whitehead Research Collection, 1869-1999Ms B107 FAIRFIELD HISTORICAL SOCIETY LIBRARY 636 Old Post Road Fairfield, Conn. 06430 Ms B107 Title:O’Dwyer, William J. Gustave Whitehead Research Collection Dates:1869-1987 Size of collection:18 linear feet Accession number:L1999.31, L1999.35 Donor:William J. O’Dwyer. Also includes photocopies of materials donated by the Connecticut State Library, from the William A. O’Neill Collection, Series I, S- 561, folder 7. These materials are housed in Series E - Governmantal Recognition, 1964-1986 of this collection.

Restrictions:The donor requires that an author receiving profits made from a publication using these materials pay a royalty of 60% to William J. O’Dwyer, with 50% of that sum going to the Fairfield Historical Society for maintenance of this collection. Processed by:Barbara E. Austen

Related Collections:Stella Randolph Collection - History of Aviation, Special Collections, Eugene Mc Dermott Library at the University of Texas at Dallas. P.O. Box 830643, Richardson, TX 75083, (972) 883-2950

I have written an email to FAIRFIELD HISTORICAL SOCIETY LIBRARY, asking if they still have the collection, or who has it now, and that I am one of the editors of the wikipedia article about GW and I want to come into contact with the people who manage the collection today.

It would help, of course, if I lived in USA and could travel to these two places and ask for permission to take a look at the material.

I am a bit surprised when I hear that Stella Randolph wanted access to her collection to be restricted. If you work for many years to spread awareness about something it seems unlikely that she should have restricted public access to her collection. Maybe somebody who lives in USA can call the phone number above and check how restricted public access to her collection really is, and why not important parts of it are published on internet.

And, by the way, the O'Dwyer collection does not only contain text documents, it also contains recordings and silk cloth samples. Roger491127 (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The O'Dwyer collection does not contain recorded interviews - the recording you refer to is of "Sounds of Leutershausen."

The silk cloth samples were for the "Hangar 21" project - the construction of a modern-day No. 21.

What I stated above, that the O'Dwyer collection does not contain recordings of interviews, is still true.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)