Talk:Alberto Santos-Dumont
From Academic Kids
The "Disputed title" section --
Please use care when editing this "Disputed title" section or otherwise addressing the issues it contains. Although contributors are always encouraged to be bold in updating pages, in this section, it is particularly important that the article maintains a neutral point of view.
Please see the discussion below for further details. Also, please feel free to raise any questions on this talk page before editing the article itself.
Blimpguy 15:48, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(The following is the old -now outdated- discussion about the first flight controversy.)
We appear once again to be stumbling on the wright brothers vs
SD controversy. I believe that version as of 15:44, 2 Apr 2004 by Jorge Stolfi has done
the best job to date of presenting a balanced view.
I'm sorry to say that I see the changes by Greyengine5 have been a step back towards an unbalanced view. I understand that this is an emotional topic. I do not want to start an "edit war" by reverting the changes, but we really need some discussion as to how to proceed. The current version is not, in my view, a reasonable presentation.
Blimpguy 22:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I reverted the changes, because I do not think the article has been improved by them. It is better to seperate out Santos-Dumont's documentable achievements from the Wright Brothers controversy, as that version does.
- Not to say that the version I reverted to is the perfect statement of this, of course, but User:Greyengine5's changes destroy that seperation which I think is important. —Morven 22:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I can understand the desire to keep them seperated, though I would have prefered a more carefull seperation of my comments then just reverting it all. Also, I think these invisible comments inserted into the text need to stop, and discussion needs to place here on the talk page.
- While I quite admire Dumont, I dont think Brazil or others do him any service by trying to elevate what he did. For me, what he did stands on its own merits-and his contributions stand as real accomplishments in the developlent of flight. That said, expanding what he did to include titles like 'father of flght' is very POV and highly controversial. The key issues made to elevate Dumonts flight- dismissal of evidence and definition are indeed seperate - and but both stand on weak ground. The large number of photo's, witnesses, and other evidence of the Wrights flights before the Dumont are not easily invalidated. The other issue of using special definitions to exclude the wrights claims as a 'true aircraft' are actually quite allright- The difference between powered planes and gliders is a grey area. Whats not ok is to expand that fufilling of a specific defintion to a broader claim. Indeed, for the general idea of aircraft there were many motorized craft of varying levels of credabilty that took into the air before the Wrights. However, only the Wrights flyer spawned other even more successfull powered flying machines -Dumonts plane included. I am working on a page for Early flying machines that will hopefully the many pioneers of aviation in perspective, and offer some relief to the many debates over early flight. Dumont is among the tougher cases - a claim both being the subject of intense rejection and elevation = so its no wonder this page on him as run into problems. I understand people feel stongly about many of the early flight claims, largely due to involvement of national or cultural pride. In engaing in work on early flight I guess should have been more prepared for the counter-editing, vauge insults, etc, that easily happens- I do belive it can be worked out objectively however. Greyengine5 00:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Greyengine5, Sorry for going ahead and editing things without discussing them first. (The invisible comments seemed to be simply a convenient way to explain the purpose of the sections to casual contributors who might not read the Talk page.) Anyway, although I am Brazilian I do not have neither special knowledge of the field nor any interest in the polemic; my goal was to improve the textual quality of the page, e.g. by sectioning the text and improving (?) the grammar. I have tried to keep all the original comments, and only delete things that were redundant or did not seem to make sense.
As said in the inline comments, I have tried to separate (1) undisputed facts from (2) disputed "facts", and get all of these (and the respective arguments) together in one section. I do not think that this page is the proper place to give a full account of all pro and con arguments and try to win readers one way or the other. This page should only warn readers that the polemic exists and give a flavor of what the two sides are saying; readers who care should read the external links.
Since I started editing, I have found out that some things that, based on the original text, I had though to be (1) were actually (2) -- e.g. the Wright Flyer *could* fly without catapult assist, there were some failry public Wright flights, etc. So I think that it is more prudent to trim the Dispute section even further -- the less it is said, the better...
Here is some of the text that I had cleaned up but, on second thought, it seems best to leave out or tone down:
- This ... was ... the first craft in the world to take off from the ground with its own landing gear and on its own power (unlike the Wright Flyers, which took off from rails with the assistance of a catapult-like mechanism).
- His supporters point out that the rail-and-catapult approach used by the Wright brothers was not an arbitrary choice but a necessary feature of their design, given its much larger weight-to-power ratio.
- (Some also point to the relatively low altitude of Santos-Dumont's flights and claim that he may have obtained extra lift by the so-called ground effect.)
- just as the Wrights studied the works of Otto Lilienthal and other early aviation pioneers.
Jorge Stolfi 02:11, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Iv made some more changes- please review as well. I really like your idea of seperating things, something that could be usefull for pages to I think. I inlcluded some the things you mention, so be sure to check them out so we can discuss them so more if there issues. Any info on number of witnesses/publicity of flight, and un-assisted/ assisted flights of the Wrights and other aircraft is interesting stuff, so feel free to pass a long if you come across info about these. I hope to gather up a comprehensive review the machines before, and- as seem prudent - ones shortly after such as the 14-Bis. I agree the inserted messages are convient (heck even repsonded intially in them), though I did take them out as I'v never seen these used in other articles (just for the sake of standardizing). It may end up being a good idea though for the reasons you mention there. My concern about the polemic issues is that outside of certian circles there is not much controversy over his accomplishments- of either side. It needs to be mentioned certainly, but- and I agree here- less needs to be said to tread lightly on the matter of various claims. I certianly appreciate your sp, grammar fixes- I apologize for not checking these enough. On a totally unrelated note, thanks for introducing me to the mdash! Greyengine5 04:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well done folks. The disputed section looks very reasonable to my Santos-friendly but North American eye.
The history of this article has several instances of revisiting the santos/wright issue. I have added an inline comment directing any would-be re-editors to alert them to talk page before editing further.
Blimpguy 15:54, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hello again!- I put some stuff, just for the 'dispute section'. I changed the to lower case, still very noticable just a little more subdued. I took out the reference to either it being 'generally' or 'many' to aviod the matter altogether. I wanted to seperate out the claims about ground effect as thats not usally in recognized in terms of the flights classification. I seperated out the 'powered glider things' as well. As for the years of advancement in engine technology during the period I tried to make it more general, rather then specific years. Also I think we need more references to Dumont's other planes, after all he had a lot better designs/flights then just the Bis, like the Demoiselle, etc. If anyone has list of all his planes that might be a nice addition. Greyengine5 19:36, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I reworded the Wright claim a bit -- added back "most commonly" -- how does that sound?
Also reworked the new paragraph a bit. I think I made only 1 content change -- I removed
the "these claims are put forward by supporters of other folks" -- in fact most claims one
way or other are put forward by partisans. So, restating it here sounds a little POV.
Also, I have a list of all of SD's aircraft. Where would you like it? Blimpguy 20:02, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yea i agree there. I tweak that ending to meke it shorter. I think the list is fine as another section added on- if its really long is suppose we could make it a new page though. If you have a lot of other data we could make a table out of it as well to inlcude things like date, hp etc. Greyengine5 20:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Has it ever been established that Alberto Dumont was even aware of the Wright Bros., during the years he was working on "heavier than air" craft. before he made his first successful flight in 14 BIS? It seems rather unlikely, in lieu of the novel nature of his aircraft designs, compared to those of others,including the Wright Brothers' designs.
I have never heard a strong argument either way. Even if he had heard of them,
it is doubtful that he would have been much influinced. The Brothers were generally dismissed as cranks prior to their public flights in 1908.
Blimpguy 16:46, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Some sites say he became inspired to work on planes after he heard of the wright brothers, so its unlikey he didn't know of them. The Aero club, with which he was involved, knew of the wrights even before they flew and made similair designs. Keep in mind that his initial planes(not the later ones) had rear facing props, a control surface in front, and a bi-wing design- more similair to the wrights then most of other early plane designs. Neverthless, I agree more research is needed to find the degree to which this is the case. Also, It might be worth noting history revisions under Getulio Vargas regime in Brazil- as there's more to this then just Dumont being brazilian. In addition, while the wrights early flights were indeed sketchy -only a short 'hop' for there public flight with the flyer 2 in 1904- i think its a bit of strech to say they were dismissed as 'cranks' all the way up to 1908 (maybe in europe?). I think that dumont's flight was a much nicer first flight of the airplane- lots of witnesses, more 'complete' airplane compared to the 1903 flights. However, people had been making short - low flights since adder (and perhaps before) and it was the wrights who could improve there designs to fly- for miles and high in the air(before 1906). Heck there were plenty of people who flew gliders farther then most of these first flights, and a lot of motorized ones that made it into the air. Finally, I was wondering if your(blimbguy) going to add the info on this aircraft. Im pretty good at doing wikicode for tables if there's enough info for for that. Greyengine5 19:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Started to enter the list of aircraft on this page and it clearly is going to be too long to work with. So I created a new page listing all Santos-Dumont aircraft I will try to flesh it more details when I have time. Or, hopefully, others will notice its creation and add the details on their own Blimpguy 12:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
the honor of first effective heavier-than-air flight is most commonly assigned the Wright brothers.
well, in the europe, and more than half of world this is not true.
commonly this is assigned in eua, and some direct related eua countries.
- The history log of this article clearly shows that this is a controversial point. Much work has gone into the wording of the article to obtain NPOV. Contributors from Brazil, the US and other countries have all worked hard on it. It is the most satisfactory statement that we have been able to agree on.
- However, there is always room for improvement. So, if you have some data on this point, in particular some objective, verifiable information about opinions held outside of Brazil and the US (as we already have lots of experience with opinions inside those two countries) then please present it. We can always use more concrete data.
- Blimpguy 00:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Re knowledge of Wright bros in Europe..they were well known to the Paris Club, specifically Octave Chanute's address to the Club in March 1903 describing the Wright's 1902 glider trials including the famous photo of the coordinated turn to the right using wing warping and rudder. That talk was the basis of Germany's denial of a patent to the Wrights, since the wing warping was to them "in the public domain" at that moment and prior to the Wrights officially being awarded a patent. (In the US, you have one year grace period after divulging details to be granted a patent, in Europe there is no grace period). Many early (1904-1906)European gliders were called "type du Wright" if styled after the Wright design. Voisin claimed he "never heard of the Wrights" which seems very unlikely. The St Louis Worlds Fair set up a triangular course and hoped to set up a competition between Santos Dumont and Wrights. The Wrights declined the offer, and Dumont came, but when his dirigible was vandalized, he returned to France in anger. They clearly knew of one another, but never met. By the way, Earnest Archdeacon was French, not American
--Pegasus2PH 05:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
new images
I uploaded three images of the 14 bis aircraft that must be unorphaned.
- 80px
- Missing image
14-bis-wth-air-ballon-aid.jpg
some of those images should be moved to a future 14 Bis article
--Alexandre Van de Sande 21:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Seaplane crash
There was a horrible seaplane crash on December 3, 1928 but Santos was not on board. The flight occured when Santos was returning to Brazil. Several members of the Brazilian scientific community boarded a seaplane that flew out to greet his ship. However, the plane crashed with the loss of all on board. The loss only deepened Santos' dispondency over the horrors created by "his" invention.
Santos did crash one of his own airships into Monoco bay some years earlier. That was the only mishap that I know of involving a water crash.
However, I know of no case where Santos himself was onboard a seaplane that crashed.
If the contributor could site some authoratative, independent reference with regard to this incident it would be most helpful.
Details of Suicide
I've read reports that Santos' suicide was by hanging, but I've never heard the "shower hose" claim entered by a non-logged in user. Since I have no way to verify that fact, I'm going to back out the specific item until it can be verified by somebody else. Blimpguy 11:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am not sure, but most Brazilian media say that he commited suicied by hanging (well, at least, what I had read or watched about him and his suicide was that he did it by hanging). I did not find any media in english to comprove that, but many Brazilian sites, as well as two old Brazilian magazines that I had read say it.
- [1] (http://www2.uol.com.br/JC/_2001/1801/el3112_15.htm)
- [2] (http://www.sobreasondas.com)
- [3] (http://www.latinidade.hpg.ig.com.br/sdumont.htm)
- [4] (http://www.novomilenio.inf.br/guaruja/gh011.htm) (and many others, in Portuguese)
In a Globo Ciencia magazine (science magazine published by Globo), it is written that he hanged himself in the shower hose with his necktie - depressed by seeing the airplane being used as a warfare in a Brazilian Civil War (1932 Constitutionalist Revolution - Sao Paulo's state against national forces). Ana Jessica 04:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think the issue may be one of translation.
Somebody who knows Portuguese may be able to straighten it out.
In English works (particularly Paul Hoffman's recent book
in which he interviewed the elevator boy -- now an old man but still alive -- who gave SD the ride up to his room) the description on Page 311 is that he used "two bright-red ties from his flying days in Paris" and was found "dangling at the end of the ties from a hook on the bathroom door -- a method of suicide that could have succeeded only for someone so light". Does that match the Portuguese descriptions? Blimpguy 13:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ailerons
Dumont did make an attempt to steer by use of paddles located between the upper and lower wings on each side of the aircraft on his modified 14 Bis Nov 1906 model. Its not quite the same as an aileron, which is a change in the chord of the wing and which changes the angle of attack and therefore lift, exactly what wing warping does. Until demonstrated by Wilbur Wright in 1908, no European aircraft deliberately banked to turn, they skidded the tail around in a flat turn. In fact, the high dihedral (wing tips higher than the root) was specifically to keep the aircraft upright. I'm pretty certain Dumont was thinking of the way a canoe paddle creating drag on one side turns the canoe to that side, and was doing the same. Demoiselle (1909) adopted the Wright method of wing warping. By 1912, Glenn Curtis created moveable ailerons in an (unsuccessful legal but commercially successful) attempt to get around the Wright patent.
--Pegasus2PH 05:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
additional history of Santos Dumont
Does anyone have any information about:
1. who actually built 14-bis? SD did not build his dirigibles, and unlikely he would have built 14-bis. Probably Voisin, but I'd like to have concrete info. If so, who did the engineering? How similar were Bleriot's and Dumont's airplanes, if both built by Voisin?
2. Why did none of SD's models after 14 bis and before Demoiselle get off the ground? Who built them?
3. Demoiselle is radically different from 14-bis, and not just in size. Wing curvature, monoplane rather than box kite, rudder/elevator position, use of wing warping, pilot seated, and especially use of a tapered propeller rather than paddle-like prop are some differences. What caused him to make these changes?
4. Why did SD's relationship with nobility in Europe sour considerably after (1910)? Esp with Princess Isabel of Brazil, with whom he was once very cordial?
Any info, Id appreciate. Citations, please, if you have them.
--Pegasus2PH 01:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The following is drawn from the books listed in the article.
1) Santos had his own workshop and workmen. He often "rolled up his sleeves" on the various building projects. His first balloon was built by others, but he designed it. Likewise, Santos did his own design and engineering work.
2) Don't know.
3) Don't know the answer to this one. Santos was very much focused on small, light craft. So as to the overall design direction, the progression to smaller isn't surprising.
4) Don't know.
Blimpguy 22:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have been pursuing answers to Santos Dumont since I was 16, and Im well into my 50's. Im American, but wife, children, and in-laws Brazilian. I'm one of the few who have actually seen SD's embalmed heart at ITA (Brazil's Aeronautical Military Academy).. in 1967. I'm an experienced instrument pilot and student of early aviation. What frustrates me is that all fundamental questions about SD's 14bis/15bis work has so little hard data...no lift tables, no math..no correspondence, nothing. You can't build an aircraft in a vaccuum..All we really know is that he showed up with an airplane. I know SD supposedly destroyed his records after problems w French at WW1, but nothing????? Something this important????
I'm hoping that, with the internet, if there is anything out there, we'll find it. There must be a progression of hypothesis, testing, failure, analysis, retesting and success.
BTW, I am highly skeptical that SD would "roll up his sleeves". I know hundreds of Brazilians in middle and wealthy class;(all Paulistas or Mineiros like SD) not one has a toolbox, or would even think of using one. This is cultural..they would be horrified at the thought. You hire someone to do manual labor..always. Picture Queen Victoria fixing a toilet and you have an idea. An ultra-rich SD who dines at Maxim's using a wrench and lathe? Cant'be.
--Pegasus2PH 02:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Loss of papers - I think it is the combination of his own depression/destruction and the fact that he had no direct descendents or even a company that would attempt to preserve such things. The rolling of sleeves -- This is pretty consistently reported in all of the books I've read on SD -- even the Hoffman books which was, in many ways, a less than flattering view of the man. SD's habit of actually working in his own shop is represented as being a bit odd. But, as I recall, there are references to cases where he'd come in from the shop, put on a jacket, and head off to Maxim's. But I've not read any primary sources, only secondary ones. So it could well be a myth. Perhaps this is very unusual given his background, but all of the "inventor-types" I know of get down-and-dirty with their creations. Blimpguy 14:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-- Suns "Today, while there remains a high regard for Santos-Dumont's accomplishments, and a recognition of the 14-bis flight as a important event in early aviation, the honor of first effective heavier-than-air flight is most commonly assigned the Wright brothers for their flight of 38.9km (24.2mi) on Oct. 5 1905 with their Flyer III in the US."
Whell, is public that is only commonly assigned to the Wright Brothers in eua, and eua closely related countries. So this is strange fact to expose.
Spliting in two articles
I notice that the Disputed Title section is good. But, is it just a Dumond's problem? It's Wright's problem, too. Why keep it in THIS article? Shouldn't we move it to a new article? Something like "Father of Aviation".
What do you think? User:Sanmartin
- It's in progress. See First flying machine. A D Monroe III 21:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- While a separate article is a fine idea, some of the issue is specific SD. In particular, SD's obscurity today, outside of Brazil, after being so wildly famous in his own day is an interesting historic anomoly. I would hope that the specifics of SD's accomplishments and the fame that they obtained at the time aren't deleted/lost/obscured when the new, more general article is created. Blimpguy 22:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. First flying machine has no specifics, yet. Listing the claims by name is flame bait. I first want to establish the ground rules (mostly, that there is no single answer). The Disputed title section can be added at the end, along with similar sections from Sir George Cayley, Clement Ader, Otto Lilienthal, Wright brothers, Louis Blériot and everyone else's local heroes. Remember, this isn't just between SD and the Wrights.
- First, though, we have to disentangle the articles First flying machine (1stFM) and Early flying machines (EFM). I was going to replace EFM completely, but I'm now thinking I'll keep the table at the end as a separate article in EFM. That will leave the end of 1stFM open for sections as suggested. --A D Monroe III 14:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Greetings 200.207.56.50 -- While you have certainly followed the Wikipedia "advice to be bold in editing", your rewrite of the Disupted Title section with a one-side, completely pro-Santos view does not adhere to the goal of "neutral point of view." This section has been carefully crafted as a combined work of many authors, both North and South American. It would be more appropriate to put your opinion piece in a separate Wikipedia article with a link from the main Santo-Dumont page. Blimpguy 18:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
