Talk:Traian Vuia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Introduction again

For the present I have just removed some of the more silly un-encyclopedic text from the intro: there is no such thing as a lighter than air monoplane, and no poweed monoplane is claimed to have been launched with external assistance. 70.231.227.221 (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please come with references supporting your claim and discuss them on the talk page, before you start editing and article with {{POV-lead}} and {{Expert-subject}} headers.--Lsorin (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reference to a lighter than air monoplane. Find one before you put that ridiculous claim back. (Good luck)Romaniantruths (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I can support the change to the Intro which does not use the words "unassisted," "heavier than air," and "flying machine". By way of explanation, in the previous wording, "monoplane" modifies "flying machine". It describes what type of flying machine took off. Compare with "biplane flying machine". In the same way, "heavier than air" modifies "flying machine". To sum up, in the previous version, the type of flying machine is described/modified by the terms "monoplane" and "heavier than air". As I previously mentioned, it is possible to cherry-pick bits of the wording and claim it's wrong, but only if not seeing and understanding the whole expression as written. I don't object to the absence of "unassisted," but neither does retaining that word make the intro wrong, because it is true that the takeoff was unassisted and the takeoff was well-documented. DonFB (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

maybe you can explain to me how Vuia writing a letter to L'aerophile claiming that he flew while his mechanic and two old freinds were watching counts as documentation. And by the way, have you noticed that 4 of the 8 footnotes refer to references which credit Ader with unassisted flight of a heavier than air monoplane before 1900? the Centennial of Flight reference which I believe you added is one. So is the Hargrave-Pioneers site(Look up Ader on the site instead of just reading the vuia page). And two of the flight magazine articles credit him as well.

Take note that I'm not searching around the internet to find and pile up references to support my contentions as yet. I'm just pointing out that the references supplied by Lsorin(who is highly prejudiced toward Vuia), and you(Who claims to have never seen evidence that vuia wasn't the first well-documented monoplane flight) are supportive of my contentions. Romaniantruths (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Take the sources you have problems with to WP:RSN WP:RSN. Don't change the article without getting to a consensus. Just editing because you fell some kind of personal hate against Vuia, does not stand in Wikipedia. The introduction was agreed above.--Lsorin (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• the introduction was not agreed above because I didn't agree to it. Romaniantruths (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The only doubt about Vuia's flights that I've seen is yours (Romaniantruths). The sources for this article do not express any doubt about his flights/hops. One source that you construe as doubtful or skeptical is Flight magazine, which itself does not express any doubt, but simply does not list Vuia flights before October. In the magazine's same table of "the performances which have been made" there are also no entries for 17 Dec 1903.

(My comment continues after a brief interruption, just below, by an unsigned comment by Romaniantruths and my response.)

• Performances which have been made. What kind of performances are those that haven't been made?

This is the exact quoted phrase that you inserted into the article, when you wrote in your edit summary: "used wording from article to avoid editorial slant of any kind". If you have changed your mind and no longer like that phrase or want to delete it from the article, I have no objection. DonFB (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(Continued from above, which was interrupted where I wrote: "entries for 17 Dec 1903".)

In sources about Ader, doubt or conditional phrasing can be found. For example, the Hargrave site that you mentioned quotes "A History of Aeronautics" by E. Charles Vivian, whose book includes a chapter or section titled "Not Proven," in which the author wrote about Ader: "there is no proof either way, and whether he was or was not the first man to fly remains a mystery in the story of the conquest of the air." (My post is again interrupted by Romaniantruths, just below. After his interruption, my post resumes with the words, "Nevertheless, I look forward....")

• Try reading the reference you're quoting in it's entirety. E. Charles Vivian credits Ader with short hops which were not considered full flight in 1897. You're arguing that Vuia's short hops are somehow qualitatively different from this? Ader's flights are generally discussed in the context of wether he deserves priority over the Wrights, and there is a great deal of justifiable skepticism over this. Do not confuse this skepticism with the question of wether he ever got off the ground at all, which is the most that anyone credits Vuia with.Romaniantruths (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I look forward to what you may be able to find if you decide to commence "searching around the internet to find and pile up references to support my contentions." DonFB (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As well there is no reference in Flight of other tests in August basically rendering that source irrelevant. As well the author of that list is completely missing.--Lsorin (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no mention of tests Vuia claimed to make in August because it's a list of performances that have been achieved, not failures, or unsubstantiated claims.Romaniantruths (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths wrote (to me):

"You're arguing that Vuia's short hops are somehow qualitatively different from this?" (re: Ader)

Nope. I'm not arguing at all about any presumed qualitative difference. I'm simply pointing out that Vuia's flights/hops are not challenged, questioned or subject to doubt or speculation in either contemporaneous or present-day reliable and verifiable sources, unlike reputed takeoffs by all pioneers before him (even the Wrights, according to fringe, though not reliable, sources). This article, like every other one in Wikipedia, must be built on information and opinions presented in the reliable and verifiable sources, not on editors' opinions or evaluations (such as "shoddy") about the information in those sources.

If you really want to argue this stuff (and I know you do), I suggest you jump into Lsorin's incipient draft of an article about aviation pioneer "Controversies". I might even join you there, and we'll have a lot of fun. But presently, accepted aviation history in reliable sources does not support your POV about Vuia. I'm not in sympathy with the grandiose claims that are made for Vuia in some places, and this article no longer makes such exaggerated statements about him. However, for the forseeable future at least, the damage is done: the internet is now filled with those exaggerations about Vuia, many or most of them mirrored from earlier versions of this very article. DonFB (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in what you think you do or don't know about me I have read what you said about opinions of editors having no place here, and I agree. So I will remove your opinion that this was the first 'well documented' monoplane flight. I am especially confident in doing this since every reference you have presented to 'prove' your opinion that Ader's flight is disputed has actually said that Ader did in fact leave the ground under his own power. If you disagree with this I recommend that you go play in Lsorin's sandbox. It seems like just the place for you controversial claims.Romaniantruths (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you agree with the fundamental concept of NPOV. As I said earlier, I did not wish to dogmatically defend the term "well-documented". At that time, I invited you to offer an alternative. Now that you finally have, perhaps it can be accepted without additional changes. DonFB (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths, please list the references supporting your truths. Your personal truths are not generally accepted.--Lsorin (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lsorin, please list the references supporting yourt truths. your personal truths are not generally accepted.

And if your want to see why I changed the lede, read the Traian Vuia talk page. I'll post a link to it later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaniantruths (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Post the link fist then we agree and then you update the page.--Lsorin (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone willing to accept the following?....

"This was the first unassisted takeoff and landing on a level surface by an engine-driven monoplane with a wheeled undercarriage that was publicly reported soon after it occurred and is accepted by aviation historians." DonFB (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree--Lsorin (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Drop the unassisted and I agree too. No one flew an assisted take-off frfom level ground before him in a monoplane, so this unnecessarily limits his acheivement.Romaniantruths (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Find the reliable source which is tells that Vuia first take-off was assisted, except "by the propeller".--Lsorin (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

[Resetting Indent]

Ok, so it looks like we're really close.

A quick review.......

On Sept 29, I suggested a sentence within the introduction to the article that included the word "unassisted". An editor agreed on the Talk page and the sentence was inserted into the article, replacing previous wording. Another editor subsequently modified the sentence. Among the changes, "unassisted" was deleted. I responded by saying I could accept that change. I can still accept it. Today, I posted a suggested revision to the sentence as a compromise for other problematic parts of the wording. I added back "unassisted," hoping it might not be a big deal. That word now appears to be the only part of the sentence in dispute between the editor who agreed with it and the editor who modified it. Having said and repeated that I could accept the sentence without "unassisted," perhaps I should recuse myself. But I've decided to be bold and want to offer reasoning why the word can used.

The word can make completely clear to readers that the Vuia takeoff was not assisted. The issue of "assisted" or "unassisted" takeoff is significant, and sometimes contentious, in articles/biographies about aviation pioneers. If this article can state unequivocally that Vuia was unassisted, that's useful and relevant information for readers. As applied to Vuia, the word "unassisted" is factual and non-controversial. In very long discussions about this article, no one has said that a reliable source doubts that fact or supports a decision to exclude it from the article.

My current suggested intro says the takeoff and landing happened "on a level surface". That quoted phrase clearly implies that no assistance was used. However, rather than only implying the fact, it seems preferable to state it explicitly, which gives readers another specific piece of notable information.

As a convenience, here is the current suggested sentence to be included in the article introduction:

"This was the first unassisted takeoff and landing on a level surface by an engine-driven monoplane with a wheeled undercarriage that was publicly reported soon after it occurred and is accepted by aviation historians." Comments welcome from all editors. DonFB (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little unclear on your objection, Lsorin. Was this not, "The first powered takeoff from a level surface by monoplane that was publicly reported soon after it occurred and is widely accepted by historians"? This is already a fairly cumbersome phrase for a lead. Why do you want to make it longer?Romaniantruths (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Vuia's first fight was relevant for being the first "unassisted". If you say that is just the "first powered takeoff" this will clash with Wright brother's first "assisted" take-off. So until you don't demonstrate with relevant sources that is was assisted, then you cannot have as just the "first powered takeoff" because of the discrepancy.--Lsorin (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple of comments for each of you to consider. For Romaniantruths: The only objection you seem to offer to "unassisted" is that it adds another word to the sentence. I haven't seen an objection based on factuality, or sources. For Lsorin: Even if the sentence does not say "unassisted," it will not clash with the Wrights, for two reasons: 1) the sentence specifies "monoplane"; 2) the Wright Flyer at Kitty Hawk in 1903 did not use a catapult. DonFB (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Traian Vuia/Archive 2 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Let's start with basics, Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The editor who wishes to introduce "unassisted" into the sentence has the burden to provide a reliable source to support that assertion. Such a source must be one which (a) acknowledges, recognizes, or asserts that the issue of assistance is part of the controversy concerning early manned flight and, (b) in that context, (c) clearly asserts that Vuia's flight was unassisted. The source must, of course, also be reliable. However, parts (a) and (b) would also be true, but with "assisted" substituted for "unassisted" in (c) if an editor wishes to affirmatively assert that Vuia's flight was assisted. The controversy over the word, however, I suspect masks the real dispute: Whether in articles about early manned flight the issue of assistance is so important that the article is ambiguous or insufficient without an affirmative assertion one way or another. The answer for that, at Wikipedia, is simple: Wikipedia does not exist to settle real–world disputes; Wikipedia exists to report received knowledge, as adjudged by the existence or absence of reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources to resolve a real world dispute related to an otherwise–notable article and that leaves an uncertainty or ambiguity in the article, then that uncertainty or ambiguity must simply remain in the article. This dispute, therefore, like all content disputes at Wikipedia, must be settled by providing and evaluating reliable sources. Until that happens then no amount of discussion here can resolve the problem.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you TransporterMan for joining this discussion. The word unassisted is proposed as a form to shortly explain that Vuia plane was not the first aircraft to fly with engine ( the first was Wright Brother's flight with the catapult which is in this cases "assisted" ) but was the first aircraft to achieve the take-off speed under it's own power and untethered. As well was the first monoplane. This is was is listed in most of existing references listed at the Library of the Romanian Academy.--Lsorin (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

newspapers all over the world

The claims about the coverage Vuia's tall tale recieved are not borne out by the reference. And the reference itself is full of provably false claims. Nature never did an article about vuia, only the French La Nature did, and the New York coverage they claim was in 1907, and was about a 1907 flight which wasn't any more sucessful than his 1906 attempts. This last should be obvious- when's the last time you saw a newspaper run an article about something from the previous year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ion G Nemes (talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Texts that contradict each other

The work of Traian Vuia was not useful to anybody but Alberto Santos Dumont recognized Vuia as a precursor!

1) "his experiments did not result in advances in aviation." 2) "Aviation pioneer Alberto Santos Dumont, who made famous short flights in Paris in October and November 1906, recognized Vuia as a "forerunner" of his efforts, as described by Charles Dollfus, the curator of an aeronautical museum in Paris."

Somebody has to revise the Wikipedia page about Traian Vuia and make it more coherent. There is a picture made in spring 1906 with the plane of Vuia and Santos Du Monde. See: http://www.earlyaviators.com/evuia1.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.65.72 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Text, not supported by citation, removed

Traian Vuia was the first who took-off unaided (by a catapult, slope, front wind or by the engine coupled directly to the wheels) in an airplane having a wheeled undercarriage. So the text "and his experiments did not result in advances in aviation." is unfair, not supported by proofs, by any citation, and for this reason I removed it.

Supporting evidence that Vuia had a contribution in the advancement of aviation

(1)quote “In August 1906 Vuia achieved new successes. On the 12th , the machine twice left the ground on flights of about 30 ft. On the 19th, a fine day, he flew 80ft, at a height of about 8ft, but crashed.”

(2)An editorial note in the September 1906 issue of L’Aerophile reads quote “At a moment when similar experiments are under way or being planned it is only just to recall that M. Vuia is the first person in France to have really attempted, with a machine able to carry a man, the direct take-off of an airplane having a wheeled undercarriage.”

(3)A note in June 1907 that appeared in L’Aerophile reminds readers that, quote “The model 1 Vuia aeroplane, it should not be forgotten, was tested publicly in advance of all contemporary machines – from early in February 1906.”

Source of all citations is http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%200368.html which is an article from the Reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

First and most importantly, Vuia did not fly his machine. He attained a hop with it, at best. Secondly, Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith says he contributed nothing to the advancement of aviation. Gibbs-Smith's analysis is more important than earlier assessments. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith did not say that the experiments of T. Vuia "did not result in advances in aviation." or that "he contributed nothing to the advancement of aviation". This is what I found about what Gibbs-Smith wrote regarding Traian Vuia, quote "The British aviation historian Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith described this aircraft as "the first man-carrying monoplane of basically modern configuration", yet "unsuccessful" because it was incapable of sustained flight." I will remove the text "and his experiments did not result in advances in aviation.[1]" because it is attributed to an author that did not write it.

Please, do not try to mislead people by attributing your personal opinions to an well known author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk • contribs)

I looked up the quote from Gibbs-Smith and it is about the Brazilian airplane man Alberto Santos-Dumont. It is not about Traian Vuia. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Documentation paragraph is inaccurate and contains mistakes

(1) The text "and of his later airborne test of September 1906" is incorrect and not supported by the reference indicated (see http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%200368.html).

In his letters to L'Aerophil (published in April and September 1906), Vuia described a few short flights he had performed in the interval March 18 - August 19, 1906. I propose the text be changed in: "and of his later airborne tests, till August 19, 1906".

(2) As it is formulated, the Documentation paragraph leaves the reader with the impression that Traian Vuia never performed any observed, public take off and landing and no official or credible person has ever witnessed his plane leaving the ground, which is again incorrect because L'Aerophile from October 1906, page 243 (see the citation below), contains and article, not based on any letter from Vuia, which describes two public flights, one measuring 4 meters with Vuia plane flying for 0.4 seconds on October 8, 1906 and another that took place on October 14, 1906 when the same airplane flew 0.6 seconds.

I propose the insertion of this text "Vuia performed the first known public demonstration of his airplane on October 8, 1906 when he flew 4 meters in 0.4 seconds in front of two officials (MM. Archdeacon and Ed. Surcouf) from Aéro Club of France." before "Another journal of the period, Flight, credited him with a hop of five meters"

L'Aerophile from October 1906, page 243 Quote "Le 8 octobre, étaient présents a l'expérience : MM. Archdeacon, président de la Commission sportive de l'Aéro-Club de France et Ed. Surcouf, secrétaire de la Commission sportive. Terrain humide et peu roulant, brises folles. … Trois essais dans la matinée. Dans le premier, l'appareil monté par M. Vuia s'allège visiblement sans quilter le sol. Durée tolale du trajet : 21 s. 3/5. Pression dans la chaudière : 42 kilogs. Dans le deuxième essai, la vitesse est plus grande et l'appareil quitte le sol des quatre roues, volant à une quinzaine de centimètres du sol, parcourant 4 mètres environ en 2/5 de seconde chronométrés par M. Surcouf. Pression : 58 kilogs. Un presse-étoupe saute, inler-rompant le parcours. Dans le troisième essai, l'incidence des plans avait été augmentée, mais le réchauffement du gaz se faisant mal, l'aéroplane ne s'enlève pas complètement.

Aux expériences du 14 octobre assistaient encore MM. Archdeacon et Surcouf et de nombreux témoins, entre autres Santos-Dumont. Sol assez bon malgré les ondées de la veille. Vent du N.-N.-O. assez fort avec rafales. Dans la matinée, un essai au cours duquel l'appareil quitte par deux fois le sol, le premier bond étant sensiblement plus long que celui du dimanche précédent pour une durée de 3/5 de seconde. Pression : 50 kilogs. Une fissure s'étant déclarée dans un tube de la chaudière, il faut réparer. Deux nouveaux essais officieux sont faits l'après-midi, sans arriver à l'essor, les brûleurs fonctionnant mal. M. Vuia, qui est un modeste, avait fui jusqu'à présent les occasions de se produire. Après ces premiers essais publics, dont le succès sans atteindre celui d'expériences privées antérieures plus heureuses, ni égaler encore le vol de Sanlos-Dumont à Bagatelle, le 13 septembre, mérite cependant les plus vifs compliments" Source: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000520243 select v.14 1906 and go to page 243

No, four meters is not a flight—it is at best a hop. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wright Brothers flew, in 1903, helped by a strong headwind

L'Aerophile from January 1904, page 17, contains an exact account of the flights performed on December 17, 1903 as described by Wright Brothers themselves. They mention a headwind between 22 and 20.5 miles/hour during all their powered flights that day. Also they noted that the ground speed of their plane was 10 miles/hour while its airspeed varied between 30 and 35 miles/hour (see the citation below from L'Aerophile, January 1904, page 17).

I propose the insertion of the following note: "However, it should be mentioned that Wright Brother's plane performed all four tests on December 17, 1903 in strong headwind conditions, flying with a ground speed of 10 miles/hour while its airspeed varied between 30 and 35 miles/hour."

As it is written, the paragraph that compares Vuia and Wright Brother's flights leaves the impression that the flights from December 17, 1903 took place without the help of a headwind which can not be neglected as long as it was at least twice the ground speed of the plane.

L'Aerophile, January 1904, page 17 "« Nos constatations parliculières, faites avec un anémomètre de poche, à une hauteur de quatre pieds (1 m. 20), nous ont indiqué une vitesse de 22 milles (35 kil.=9 m. 72 par seconde) au moment de la première expérience et de 20 milles 1/2 (33 kil.= 9 m. 20 par seconde) au moment de la dernière. « Le départ était donné juste contre le vent. Chaque fois, l'appareil se mit en marche par ses propres moyens, sans l'aide d'une impulsion première ni d'aucun autre secours. … « Contre un terrible vent de décembre, la machine volante avança avec une vitesse de 10 milles (16 kil. = 4 m. 45 par seconde) à l'heure par rapport au sol el de 30 à 35 milles (50 à 56 kil. ou 13 m. 90 à 15 m. 55) à l’heure par rapporl à l'air ambiant." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. The headwind did not "help" the Wright Flyer fly, it helped the men by making it easier to retrieve the machine and return it to its starting position. The Flyer did not require a headwind at all. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion not supported by any citation. Honestly, it is the first time I hear that the December 1903 plane of Wright Brothers did not need strong winds for taking off. It is also a novelty to hear that the brothers Wright needed the strong headwinds not for taking off / flying but for helping them to push back the plane to the rail once it landed. I will continue to insert the remark I proposed (which is backed by a text written in January 1904 in L'Aerophile which quotes Wrights Brothers themselves) till you come with better citations (credible articles, credible authors, credible journals) that supports your both claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It is true that the Flyer, moving at a groundspeed of perhaps less than 10mph (as footnoted in the WB article), was definitely helped to get airborne by the headwind. Recall that the Wrights originally attempted a gravity-assisted takeoff from the sand dune, but decided on the 17th to use flat ground because the wind was so strong. Whether the Flyer required a headwind is a subject for another debate. Presumably, given a long enough rail, it might have lifted off in still air.

For what it's worth, I think this article (Vuia) should simply state what he did, and omit any text which takes the reader toward the rathole of nationalist arguments by attempting to compare Vuia and the Wrights. Such comparisons inevitably degenerate into a Wikipedia editors' POV pissing contest. My vote is to completely eliminate the paragraph that begins, "Romanian enthusiasts emphasize" and ends, "where they started". However, if deleting all that text is too extreme, I would support text which simply says: "Romanian enthusiasts emphasize that Vuia's machine was able to take off from a flat surface by on-board means without outside assistance, such as an incline, rails, catapult or headwind." That's an accurate statement, although it should be footnoted. The statement appropriately tells readers about Romanian sentiment regarding their national hero, without attempting (as earlier versions of this article wrongly did) to say that Vuia was first to make an unassisted flight. The article's introduction already says, "Vuia never achieved sustained, controlled flight with his early aircraft" (which would also benefit from a footnote). That's sufficient editorial balance for me. For the sake of editing peace, it would better to omit any explicit mention of the Wrights, because any such comparison will likely elicit a counter-edit, and the edit war will resume. DonFB (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree because including the points about "without outside assistance, such as an incline, rails, catapult or headwind" is specifically including arguments against the Wrights. Nationalist writers make these arguments that the Wright brothers' machine required a rail, an incline, a headwind, and even mistaken arguments such as they supposedly required a catapult (in 1903, when they did not use one). Even when they used a catapult in later flights it was for convenience, to save takeoff distance.

Regarding the reasons for flying into a headwind, the Wrights said to Mr. Root, a beekeeper, that "the wind does the greater part of the work in carrying it back" up the hill. This is from the beekeeper journal published in 1905: Gleanings in bee culture. Also on PBS NOVA. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No argument about the wind helping them carry it back in North Carolina. The catapult was for more than convenience, however. In 1904 Wilbur wrote to Chanute lamenting the difficulty of taking off at Huffman because of the lack of wind and because the takeoff rail, although much longer, was still too short, and he mentioned they were devising a method to overcome the problem. Would you support eliminating the paragraph in the Vuia article that I referred to? DonFB (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Every aircraft inventor who was active during 1903–1906 is compared to the Wrights. There is always something about the Wrights in the reliable sources about Santos-Dumont, for instance, and Vuia. We should not remove the comparison, but it should definitely establish the Wrights as having the first workable aircraft, fully equipped with all necessary flight controls and adequately powered. Weaselly constructions such as "the first to fly without a headwind" and such should be thrown out. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(1) Quote "Weaselly constructions such as "the first to fly without a headwind" and such should be thrown out." Do you want people to know what exactly each inventor did for the progress of aviation or simply throw out any evidence that do not support your personal views? (2) Quote "Regarding the reasons for flying into a headwind, the Wrights said to Mr. Root, a beekeeper, that "the wind does the greater part of the work in carrying it back" up the hill." This implies that Wright Brothers landed at a lower altitude than the point of depart, as long as they pushed the plane up the hill! It could be partial gliding.

Abuse Reported. I got personal messages coming from the same person who is bulling me that I will be suspended if I continue to insert what he abusively and against all the evidence calls "texts based on personal opinions" despite the fact all my Wikipedia contributions are backed by citations from credible publications and authors.

This article clearly explains exactly what Vuia did. He made short airborne hops in a self-propelled machine. Regarding your comment above about the Wrights: You are correct--the Wrights were describing to Root their gliding experiments in North Carolina, where, indeed, they landed lower than their takeoff point. Take some time to study the Wright brothers so you can avoid misunderstanding fundamental facts about their accomplishments. DonFB (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The same idea repeated four times

Someone inserted in four different places the same thing said by the same author. I propose the deletion of (1),(3) and (4) leaving in place just the citation (2).

(1) "Vuia never achieved sustained, controlled flight with his early aircraft." (the beginning of the page) (2) "The British aviation historian Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith described this aircraft as "the first man-carrying monoplane of basically modern configuration", yet "unsuccessful" because it was incapable of sustained flight.[5]" (paragraph Flying experiments). (3) "None of these were successful in achieving sustained flight, so Vuia abandoned them.[7]" (paragraph Flying experiments). (4) "None of these brief seconds of the aircraft being airborne qualify as sustained, controlled flight.[5]" (paragraph Documentation).

The Wikipedia page about Vuia clearly states in the beginning that "His first airborne test traveled about 12 metres (39 feet) on March 18, 1906, and his best distance was 24 m (79 ft)." so with this information and what Gibbs-Smith said at (2) is quite clear that Vuia's flights were not sustained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Each of those is needed to balance out the positive text going before. It must be emphasized that Vuia did not achieve sustained flight, as the main problem we get on this page is people who think Vuia was first to fly. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

While four sounds a lot in a relatively short article (there's a lot of life not covered 1907-1918 and 1920-1950 which may make it appear disproportionate) at the moment it seems to follow from the way the article is arranged. You have two opinions on his work Dumont's and Gibbs-Smith on his effective contribution/influence - Gibbs-Smith acknowledges he has the basic features of a modern aircraft but that they didn't work. Then the article says why Vuia gave up certain of his designs - because he wasn't getting anywhere. Then you have the section that lists what he did achieve but that it didn't count as proper flight. (it might be better if what he did achieve in his experiments was incorporated into the chronological flow of the article rather than appearing tacked on afterwards) And when that's all covered in the main body of the article, it needs mentioning in the article summary which is the opening paragraphs of the article. It also comes about because there aren't many who have written authoriatatively on the period so it's the same source backing the one point.

Perhaps a rewrite of the article body would a) put things in the order they happened b) not look like its over-stressing the negative c) clarify what is cited and what is not in the paragraph "Romanian enthusiasts.." particularly the phrase "definitions are intended to take away the title of...from the Wright Brothers" - that could be considered NPOV and could be rewritten in a more encylopaedic manner; enthusiasm implies heart over head, or general lack of scholarship. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this phrase: "definitions are intended to take away the title of...from the Wright Brothers" is poorly done and, without a reference, clearly sounds like editorial opinion. I don't disagree with the phrase, but it should be referenced or eliminated. I think the general approach in the article should be to include a good example of referenced text (one would be enough) that expresses the Romanian point of view and cite countervailing text that expresses the consensus point of view of non-Romanian scholars/historians. It seems to me that the entire issue could be adequately covered in two referenced sentences. Further, I think the quadruple repetition of Vuia's lack of success, even though referenced, is overdone and needs revision. DonFB (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Take off only by On-Board means" is not propaganda

The text that reads "enthusiasts emphasize that Vuia's machine was able to take off from a flat surface by on-board means without outside assistance, such as an incline, rails, or catapult." is wrongly attributed to enthusiasts. The idea was first emphasized in the french journal L'Aerophile (see the citation)

After Vuia's plane was seen, on February 5, 1906, by a group o people, including Georges Besançon, the founder of aeronautical journal L'Aérophile, an article appeared in that periodical which concluded that, I quote,

Citation from L'Aerophile "L'appareil de M. Vuia présenterait tout au moins l'avantage de supprimer les divers artifices auxquels on avait eu recours jusqu'ici pour le lancement des aéroplanes ; traction en cerf-volant par automobiles ou auto-canots, lancement sur rails ou sur plans inclinés, catapultes formidables projetant dans l'espace, d'une prodigieuse chiquenaude, la machine et l’expérimenteteur, etc… Le départ pourrait s'effectuer n'importe ou et par les seuls moiens du bord. Cette combinaison de l'automobile terrestre et de l'aéroplane fut brevetée pour la première fois, croyons-nous, par le vicomte Decazes, à l'aube de l'automobilisme, en 1892, et souvent reprise depuis ; mais pour la première fois, M. Vuia l'a complètement réalisée en vraie grandeur, avec des moyens souvent ingénieux et bien personnels." Source, L'Aerophile v.14 1906 from February 1906, page 54.

As you can see, the article clearly remarked that Traian Vuia's 1906 plane had the potential capability to take off by its own on-board means without being obliged to make use of a tractor automobile or motorized boat, rails, inclined plane or catapult.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013‎

Not speaking French, I cannot say that I do see clearly. The google translation is fortunately adequate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Aerophile article was published before Europe became aware of the Wright brothers. The article fails to point out what Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith so clearly laid out: if enough energy is applied to a barn door it will 'fly' through the air for tens of meters. These sorts of early aviation tests were categorized by Gibbs-Smith as 'hops', not flights. We cannot accept conjecture by Aerophile about "potential capability"; rather, we look at what Vuia accomplished. He made some hops in his aircraft. He was never able to fly it with sustained and controlled flight. Binksternet (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It would still be correct to say that at the time L'Aerophile opinion was that it showed promise rather than denouncing it as "it'll never fly..." Though that should be context.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely legitimate to tell the reader that Vuia was seen as being at the forefront for several years, until the Wrights' achievements were known, or until the Flyer came to France and showed people sustained flight. I don't know exactly when it was that opinion changed. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The inserted text "The French journal L Aerophile said that it offered a means for aircraft to take off from a flat surface" also correct does not have a clear subject, just an "it", and the overall formulation is confuse and not supported by references. I propose changing this text with, "The French journal L'Aérophile emphasized that Vuia's machine had the capability to take off from a flat surface only by on-board means without outside assistance, such as an incline, rails, or catapult." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"only by on-board means" emphasized by L'Aérophile is essential for the Vuia's plane. I do not understand why the same person systematically deletes this formulation, also it is clearly referenced (Quote "Le départ pourrait s'effectuer n'importe ou et par les seuls moyens du bord."). The formulation is not a later creation of some propagandists. Put the text back please. You try to mislead, to hide the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

First

" built the world's first self-propelling heavier-than-air aircraft."

Woha there nelly - let's just say that fact is just a little disputed. I'll leave it up to someone else to actually edit since I don't really know what i'm doing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.35.35 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, no kidding. Ever heard of a couple of guys named Wilbur and Orville?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.14.15 (talk • contribs)

'Yeah, no kidding. Ever heard of a couple of guys named Wilbur and Orville?'

Those guys used a catapult to take off. Read more carefully next time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adr2ian (talk • contribs)

They often used a catapult, but their first flights were accomplished without one. Why don't you try reading more carefully next time! Besides, Vuia's miserable excuse for a flight was far less than had been achieved by Jatho, Ader, and Kress years earlier!Romanianlies (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Traian Vuia is not as popular as Wright brothers? He made first flight by a heavier-than-air, self-propelled aircraft, without the aid of external takeoff mechanisms, the Discovery chanel dosn't even mention his name in "Flight history" documentary, it is not fair!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.247.56.2 (talk • contribs)

Look, if you have a point to make, why not try and write it in proper English, using proper WP formatting, and then sign (use 4 ~'s). Now, to your question (if there is indeed a question in there), I refer you to the discussion from First flying machine:

Orville & Wilbur Wright, United States — December 17 1903

First controlled, sustained heavier than air flight: in the day's fourth flight, Wilbur Wright flew 279 meters (852 ft) in 59 seconds. First three flights were approximately 120, 175, and 200 ft, respectively. The Wrights were the first to fully and accurately describe all the requirements for controlled, powered flight and put them into use in an aircraft that took off from a rail with the help of a headwind to gain sufficient airspeed to fly.

Traian Vuia, Romania — March 18 1906

First flight by a heavier-than-air, self-propelled aircraft, without the aid of external takeoff mechanisms, such as rail or catapult. Many newspapers in France, the US, and the United Kingdom wrote about the first man to fly with a heavier-than-air machine with its own take off systems, propulsion units and landing gear. The thing that has been emphasized about Vuia's achievement is that his machine was able to take off on a flat surface "only by on-board means", without any "outside assistance", be it an incline, rails, a catapult, etc.

All clear, now? Turgidson 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a point on why should Vuia's flight be considered a world first: He didn't used any external help or measures for taking of. Remember, one could trow a rock or a glider, or even a motorized glider or whatever from a catapult, and it could fly for many miles (depending on many external factors) but I wouldn't considered it "self propelled" flight, for that you need the thing to be able to takeoff and land by it's own means, and that was what Vuia achieved, and as far as we know now, this was a world's first. No one said that the Wrights weren't the first ones to fly, but Vuia could well be the first one to demonstrate that self-propelled flight of an heavier than air machine is possible (an idea heavily contested at that time as impossible and his flights were considered trickery by the "Academia"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.113.184.219 (talk • contribs) What you all fail to realize is that you're in WikiWorld now, where 1906 happens before 1903, and Wilbur...and Orville, too...are spelled Traian. Got it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.91.52 (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I cancelled "At the time Europe was aware but skeptical of the efforts of the Wright brothers who on December 17, 1903, had flown their Wright Flyer from level ground using a rail only to guide the wheeled truck that their Flyer rested on until take off was achieved. The Wrights had made sustained and controlled flights in a complete circuit by September 1904". The insert refers to some collective "Europe" lack of precise knwledge as opposed to "American"..., then jumps to Wright brothers just to contradict the previous reference. Moreover, it is self-controversial: the rail mentioned by the previous phrase is aknowledged, while "only to guide the wheeled truck" indicates that part of the take-off mechanism (the truck) was not lifted in air with the plane, which had a sled as landing gear and could not take off alone from a flat surface. The rail was downslope, which helped the takeoff, therefore not autonomous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.81.47 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

still not first monoplane, tractor or not

Ader acheived liftoff first. he used a tractor monoplane. this wasn't even the first tractor monoplane, just the first to acheive liftoff. Tractor monplanes havd bee around for over 50 years when vuia started his experiments.70.231.239.15 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Historians disagree with you. For instance, Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith wrote in 1965 that Vuia tested the "first tractor monoplane". Peter W. Brooks wrote in 1959 that "the first tractor monoplane was built by Vuia in 1906, but the first true flights by a monoplane were not made until 1908." Gibbs-Smith also wrote a book dedicated solely to Ader: Clément Ader: his flight-claims and his place in history. He is sympathetic to Ader, describing the 1890 Ader Éole as a tractor monoplane, but without the ability for controlled flight. The Ader Avion was likewise uncontrollable. Gibbs-Smith does not give Ader the right to claim the first successful test of a tractor monoplane.

If we were to credit unsuccessful tests as successful flights (!), then the first tractor monoplane would be from Félix du Temple de la Croix and his brother Louis: the Monoplane which took a hop off the ground in 1874, carrying a pilot. This, too, is discredited by modern historians. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

So, you just wrote that your Gibbs Smith source says the eole was "a tractor monoplane, but without the ability for controlled flight" You also wrote that according to Peter Brooks the "first true flights were not made until 1908" So the "first true flights" weren't Vuia's plane either. so, to paraphrase your own words: Gibbs Smith does not give Vuia the right to claim the first sucessful test of a tractor monoplane. (Although I might point out here that this right is not Gibbs-Smith's to give. If his words and opinions were the absolute and unassailable truth then there would be no need for peer review and the continued existence of avaition historians( I. E. the sun doesn't shine out of Gibbs Smith's asshole!)

"true flight", and "controlled flight" aren't what we're talking about here since neither plane was capable of that. Ader acheived more than Vuia, and earlier. As did others. The Hargrave: the pioneers site listed as a reference in support of vuia on this very page actually lists Ader and Pearce as both flying(in tractor monoplanes!) before the Wrights, let alone Vuia (let's try to keep our focus on the subject at hand here though. We're talking about getting off the ground because that's ALL Vuia ever acheived. I am fully aware that the Wrights are correctly and justly credited with sustained controlled flights) As to your additional sources, you are of course aware from your years of editing wikipedia that piling up references has little merit: Either of us could supply several hundred sources supporting our claims, especially if the blogs of private clubs like "the pioneeers", or That joke of a website from the Wright corporation (who conveniently avoid all mention, as far as I can see, of any occurences before the wright's first flight). And as for your opening phrase "historians disagree with you", well, Historians disagree with you as well. (Like the ones you quoted above) Are you aware that you are in effect arguing that since Ader didn't demonstrate 'controlled, sustained flight' he wasn't before Vuia? Just where does any reliable source say Vuia demonstrated controlled, sustained flight? (Reliable that is. I'm sure you can look around the internet and find some site that says Vuia and Coanda developed all modern flight technology, and then flew off in coanda's magic flying saucer to colonize other worlds to the greater glory of Romania) I will change the page again because it has been my previous experience that when your assertions are questioned, you sometimes just refuse to discuss the topic for months, even though you're still spending hours a night on wikipedia editing. Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

and you seem to be arguing that it's not a plane unless it is 'sucessful'. If that's the case, then why don't you delete all references to the word plane on this page? It wasn't sucessful, therefore by your arguement, it wasn't a plane. Shall we call it a 'hunk of junk'? or a 'thing'? maybe we should name it redfoot!Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the facts, I'm arguing the sources. You have just removed three good sources which say that Vuia was the first tractor monoplane. Each of these authors was quite aware of Ader and of du Temple, yet each of them came to the conclusion that Vuia was first. Wikipedia relies on published sources, not logical arguments carried out on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It is usefull to add here that wikipedia page on Du_Temple_Monoplane states that the plane lifted off "(from a combination of its own power and running down an inclined ramp)", so again, no autonomous take off. It is really so hard to accept Vuia was the first? He was the first in general, all this monoplane story is just a deviation. Wright used a rampdown plus a rail PLUS A TRUCK WHICH REMAINED ON THE RAIL, so the plane didn't lifted all his take off mechanism, was not autonomous. They've build a plane to be half-left on the ground, that's easier... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.81.47 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wrights did not use a downward slope to make their first flights. The myth of the downslope is a favorite of those who favor Vuia as first. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The myth? Are you joking? Here is the very picture taken by Orville itself to Wilbur! [1] This is the original image of the historic moment, documented by its authors! What do you want more? If this is is not a splope then tell me what it is. The description of the flight confirms it: "Orville looks over at Wilbur, positioned behind the camera, and nods with an apprehensive smile. The engine is fired up and the Flyer begins to ROLL DOWN THE HILL ON A SHORT TRACK. As the Flyer reaches the end of the track, Orville grips the controls tight, half in expectancy, the other in prayer. Suddenly, the airplane lifts off the ground and sails across the North Carolina sky. Wilbur, looking on with wonder, snaps a shot of his younger brother carrying out their dreams. His flight lasts all of 12 seconds, 120 feet (36.5 m), at a speed of only 6.8 mph over the ground, and he lands safely on the sand. The next two flights cover roughly 175 and 200 feet (60 m), by Wilbur and Orville respectively."

And again, apart the slope, there is the part of the takeoff mechanism left behind: the track and the truck.

We could make this comment continously on the Wright's page, as you keep doing it with Vuia's, jumping to Wright. But I think is wrong so, Binksternet, you too are not welcome to inject the page of Vuia with your comments about Wright! Is is not appropriate! We didn't inject Wright broders page, neither that of the first flight! If you continue we can open a debate on that, too. Keeping changing Vuia's with negative comments is not in the spirit of Wiki and is just your infinite attempt in cancelling an important event. But you cannot change the facts, better change your mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.81.47 (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that the recognised first flight by the Wrights was made on level ground but with the dolly driven by a falling weight. Now I am told I am wrong about the weight being used so early and that bit of my edit has been undone. @193.206.81.47, if you are now being told that the slope was not present for that particular flight, then you and I have the same kind of problem here. I hope that like me you will take a deep breath and check these new facts carefully - the article on the Wright brothers says that you and I are both wrong. Certainly, edit warring and ranting will not help our cases. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Not First

There are numerous others who flew before Vuia: Ader, Kress, Nyberg, Phillips, Jatho, Whitehead, Pearse, etc. Next time you check first flying machine try reading the whole article, not just the parts that agree with your assertions. Romaniantruths (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your idol Gibbs clearly contradict you here. And not just him. Wright brothers was first to flew, and Vuia was first to flew an heavy then air aircraft using just the onboard means and only the power of its engine

According to Britannica, he was the first to fly a monoplane, whereas the Wright Brothers flew a biplane. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith distinguishes between powered hops and controlled, sustained flight, and he labels Vuia "unsuccessful" because the two Vuia hops, one 12 m and the other 24 m, were not sustained. The World Book Encyclopedia of 1984 says "Traian Vuia, a Romanian inventor, built the first fullsized monoplane, but it could not fly." I assume they wrote this because Vuia never achieved controlled, sustained, practical flight in his early monoplane. Gibbs-Smith writes that Vuia abandoned his version 2 (bis) monoplane after testing it in mid-1906, "and ceased to play an important part in aviation." (Gibbs-Smith, Charles Harvard (1970). Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. p. 123.) Please see Talk:History of aviation#A general note on 'firsts', from Gibbs-Smith. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "HOP" (bounce, jump, leap, spring)is nothing but a denial of a first flight, given by someone without deep physics knowledge and with personal feelings taking over. It suggests a jump, such as for a machine pushing against ground or launched and does not describe the dynamics of weight and air resistance compensation. To take off, a plane needs more lift and drag than to maintain the flight; this is known by anybody who experienced a simple take off in a routine flight. To maintain a LAUNCHED FLIGHT is far easier. Independently on the conditions (wind which pushed the aircraft against a tree) or apparatus stability, as engine cut-off after a short while, taking off from flat surface and carying on the landing gear demonstrates a dynamics which solved FOR THE FIRST TIME the main problems and could have been prolonged indefinitely, if wind or engine failure did not occur. The autonomous flight was demonstrated. Not a long, performant one, but autonomous. Wright flights were longer and higher but ALLWAYS LAUNCHED on a slope, as documented by themselves, and, in addition, leaving the launching gear on the descendent RAMP. The Wright plane was not able (until 1908) to take off from flat surfaces and to carry the full machine (part of which, namely the gear, remained behind, as launching device). In this respect, the flight was nothing but a prolonged glide, an improvement over the previous 2000 Otto Lilienthal's ones, by adding an engine. The first "not lauched, not descendent-accelerated HOP", even for 2 cm lenght and 1 cm height, would represent the first autonomous, heavier than air FLIGHT, as it demonstrates a new STABLE, ASCENDENT dynamics. Ask the physicists on fields were comments are done by beginners. Don't give a damn on what Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith defined, the dynamics is an OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT. There is no need to understand Thom theorem to reach such knowledge. Amateurs out. Point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.83.181 (talk • contribs) 20:02, September 22, 2014

Yes, the term "hop" is a denial of flight. A "hop" was achieved by many aviation pioneers, on many experimental machines. The point Gibbs-Smith is making is that any chunk of wood, metal and cloth can be thrown into the air by the application of enough power.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the Wright brothers did not launch on a slope during their first flights. The issue of the unconnected launch undercarriage is one that does not stop the Wrights from being known as the first fliers. Of course, their Flyer was made with landing skids. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A lot of European sources congratulate Vuia for being the first to fly without a catapult or other external means to aid the initial takeoff, but these people are mistaken about the Wright brothers in 1903 who did not use a catapult at that time. They used one for later flights, flights in Paris and elsewhere, to shorten the takeoff run. The Wright's 1903 flights were performed "under its own power and the pilot's proper control, from the level..." The level launching track or runway that the Flyer used to take off was no different in purpose than the smooth, level road Vuia used. One sure difference was that Vuia's monoplane carried its own wheels but the Wrights used a set of wheels that were shed by the aircraft when it lifted off. Another, of course, is the tractor monoplane configuration used by Vuia. But the argument that the Wrights used an inclined track are wrong; on 17 December 1903 they took off four times from level ground. One famous photo of a 8°50' (8.83°) inclined track is from 14 December when the wind was otherwise too low to take off, and Wilbur Wright took off going slightly downhill, assisted by gravity in the same way he was assisted by the wind. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

They aren't mistaken because of that, they are mistaken because numerous other men flew farther and higher than vuia before he did without ramps, or catapults. The whole ramp and catapult arguement comes from people who just have a bug up their butt about the Wrights, but know virtually nothing about the early history of aviation.Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

not the first to take off under own power, or with wheels, etc

Numerous aircraft lifted off from wheels on level ground before Vuia. Jatho was the best known in Europe at that time. He flew over 200 feet in 1902. The fact that the writers in L'aerophile either were ignorant of, or chose to ignore for chauvanist reasons, this achievement doesn't change it. It MAY perhaps shed some light on the reliability of anything this Magazine says. Ader's liftoff in 1890 was also reported in the French press, and reprinted in the well-known PROGRESS IN FLYING MACHINES by Octave Chanute. This was the seminal work on flying machine design in the 19th century. The whole Idea that no one tried to fly with a wheeled airplane capable of flight without external aid before 1906 is just plain silly, and contradicted by many, many references about the many, many people who did so. 70.231.239.15 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We are not speaking here about "trying to fly". Moreover Karl Jato flight in 1902 was not motorised, he succeeded only in 1907. Ader flight at 20 cm was not controlled, while the succesive ones, if ever, had no witnesses. I understood it is hard to accept a different story but let's drop "americans" and "europeans", ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.81.47 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Two important aspects of the Wrights' achievement in 1903 are sustained and controlled flight. The Wright engine had sufficient power to sustain level flight beyond mere "hops", once it got airborne, and their ability to control the flight path was at the time unique. Others had previously taken off under their own power alone and sustained flight, but none had been able to control their flight, and none would do so until a few years later. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As for who was first to attempt take off under their own power, nobody is suggesting that Vuia was, are they? Vuia's lasting achievement was to create the first recognisably modern monoplane design. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not the first attempt. Obviously that was some guy with wings in the middle ages, or maybe some chinese guy with rockets. What was being claimed here is that Vuia was the first to fly an autonomous aircraft (not hop, fly), just have a look at the early versions of this page.. Obviously this was a big load of BS for many, many reasons. As to the idea that this was the first modern monoplane design, that's pretty silly too. It's really just a simplified version of Gaffigny's design of 1890, which had been illustrated in Chanute's Progress In Flying Machines, as well as in at least on of the designer's own books. It even specifies the strange carbonic acid gas motor that Vuia supposedly invented for his craft 15 years later. And even if we assume he independently designed a craft so remarkably similar to this design which had been published in the most widely read book on flying machines of that era, we still need to consider pearse, whose tractor monplane design is obviously much more modern (even down to the 3 axis control he included, (which was poorly placed and ineffective). Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wording of lead

The intro to this article contains the phrase "He said his first airborne test traveled about 11 metres (36 feet) on March 18, 1906". This seems to me to be a clear case of weasel wording, the implication being that this is a dishonest claim. So far as I am aware Vuia's claims are generally accepted to be honest & there is moreover a section in the article detailing the fact that the main source for these claims is Vuia's letters to l'Aerophile.TheLongTone (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have cleaned it up and added his longest hop for luck. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Vuia's claim was totally unsubstantiated; even L'Aerophile didn't accept it as the truth. And the source used here for the march 18 claim is similarly weasel-worded, so it is appropriate that I amend the article to be as 'weasel worded' as the source. So why should it be stated as fact by wikipedia that he did? And Putting such a dubious claim in the lead is much worse. In addition, even if one assumes he tells the truth in that letter (in spite of the long record of ridiculous claims he later made about being the father of flight), he says it was so windy that day that moments after he 'landed' his plane was picked up by the wind and smashed against a tree. Should we then count that as his second flight? Obviously wind conditions that are gusty enough to lift the non-running plane raise serious questions about that flight. The Idea that it is generally accepted is further bedeviled by the fact that he achieved nothing new so his claims are not looked at critically by most authors of general aviation history. In addition, the terrible inaccuracies of this page in the past spawned thousands of other inaccurate sources on vuia, as did the Romanian Government's penchant for claiming all sorts of inventions as products of the Romanian people: Jet engines, insulin, etc. And then there's the claim that they invented the flying saucer in 1938. Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet's '3 good sources

Your statement about my deleting your sources is surrounded by irrelevancies and inaccuracies by your Romanian pals, so I felt it best to respond under a separate header here. They're not good sources in the first place, and you are claiming some special knowledge about the expertise and knowledge of the authors of these sources. Did you do some INDEPENDENT RESEARCH to find out what they knew and thought? Or did you just make it up? If so, you should be aware that intentionally posting inaccurate information here is a serious violation of the rules(after your proud record of 125,000 edits, you should be aware of that). I don't expect to get an explanation from you, since you have such a long history of hiding and refusing to answer when you don't like the truth you are being confronted with. But you are in the wrong yet again, and sulking won't change that. And we're not arguing sources here, we're arguing your claim that because Ader didn't achieve sustained, controlled flight (wasn't 'successful'), that he doesn't deserve precedence over Vuia, who didn't do it either.

Let me restate it again in simple declarative phrases for you: Ader achieved a short hop in 1890, so vuia's SHORTER, hop 16 years later wasn't the first short hop. Is that clear?

Anyone reading the records here can plainly see that this very point has been discussed here again and again, how many times must this childishly simple bit of logic be explained to you? It is impossible to believe that you still can't understand it. So, do you now understand? Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

An article from Aug. 11, 1906 talks about the 12 m flight of Traian Vuia and does not doubt it

The article "Fournier, Lucien (August 11, 1906). "L'Aéroplane Vuia". La Nature (1733): 164–166." (http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/fpage.cgi?4KY28.70/168/100/642/0/0) describes in detail Vuia's plane and mentions its 12 meters flight on March 18, 1906 (see page 166). There is no word in the text that doubts the flight really took place. I do not understand why the user Nemes added "He (Traian Vuia) claimed". I want see a single article from 1906, 1907, 1908, etc., (primary sources) where the author doubts the short flights of Vuia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.24.148 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That you found another source reporting his totally unsubstantiated claims as fact does not change the fact that sources which require actual evidence don't support his claims. Like the source I pointed out as one of the two this article uses on that point.Ion G Nemes (talk)

And I see that you have vandalized the article by removing sources you don't want to aknowledge the truth of. I will revert the article to before you vandalized 

it.```