Talk:Santos-Dumont 14-bis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Santos-Dumont 14-bis is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Portal	Santos-Dumont 14-bis is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil: This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

Contradicts claim of Wright brothers; ref "First flying machine" article for more discussion. - Antonybarka

Brazilians claims that 14 Bis was the First flying machine. - basic information, as a Brazilian I'm tired of hear this on TV. --Brazil4Linux 02:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't believe there's any contradiction, because the article describes the controversy of the first flight. And, besides that, if we think about the "real first flight", then we should "give the medal" to Sir George Cayley, or maybe to Otto Lilienthal. Anyway, I think the message about contradiction should be out of the article...10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• There will always be discussion on that. My guess is that Santos Dumont performed the first flight that resembles what we see in today's aviation.

• Given that there is an entire article focusing on the controversy: eg first flying machine Perhaps the best thing to do is add reference from both this article as well as the Wright Flyer article to "first flying machines" thus avoiding any sense of contradiction while still acknowledging the controversy. Blimpguy 14:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I also think the message about a non-world-wide view should be removed. That "First Airplane" section explains the controversy, lays out why it is that one could define the 14-bis as the first practical airplane, and also explains how one could define the Wright Flyer to be the first practical airplane. This section shows that the accomplishments of Santos Dumont and those of the Wrights are not disputed, and explains how controversy arises simply from how different people choose to define "first practical airplane", without favoring one definition over the other (but stating the fact that Brazilians do overwhelmingly favor one definition - a fact that cannot be reasonably disputed). Malfita 10/10/2006. (Yes, I am Brazilian, but as an aerospace engineer and amateur aviation historian, the truth is I would hate for the accomplishments of either Santos Dumont or the Wrights to be ignored, forgotten, or overshadowed by the other).

I reverted changes to intro paragraph made by Lostan. I thought it was confusing (made it sound like article was about the inventor, not the invention). Also, too much detail for introduction and all detail covered in later sections. Glendoremus 18:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)