Talk:History of aviation

Flight myths

I'd like to propose an additional section for this page called "flight myths", or something like that, in which to put the Icarus myth (as well as other myths). What do you all say about this? Dominic inquisitive (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Is it appropriate? Dominic inquisitive (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of an article called "Flight myths." I don't think a section by that name would be especially useful for this article, but I won't oppose it. Be advised that an existing article, Early flying machines, partially overlaps your idea. With more research and sources than now evident in that article and this one covering the "mythical" period, a separate Flight Myths seems like a good addition to the encyclopedia. Also be advised (and prepared) that a Myths article might generate controversy, as editors in various parts of the world argue that some stories are not "myths," but are in fact real. DonFB (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

May I delete this whole "Flight myths" section (and your comment on it too) DonFB, since I no longer want to propose what I said above? Dominic inquisitive (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't delete the thread. It serves as a record of the discussion and may be useful if anyone thinks of the same idea. Meters (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

A redirect Flight myths could be created to point at Early flying machines#Legends though none of that section is cited (and probably would be quite difficult to cite!). Legends and myths are much the same thing. I agree that it is a good idea. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I just don't want to propose it anymore and I'd like to delete this "Flight myths" thread of this page. May I? Dominic inquisitive (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Please allow me to delete this thread. Dominic inquisitive (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe that only obvious vandalism can be removed from talk pages, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I don't see anything wrong with this thread, why would you want to delete it? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I replied above. Dominic inquisitive (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't delete talk page threads. They stay in place for a while and then they are archived. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

there is no proof given, citation, that the Chinese invented kites. We know Indians, South east Asians, and japan islands had kites throughout their history. We know from 1930 to 1980s red guard burned, mashed, and destroyed most of their culture, and then reinvented it.

However, there is no citation or evidence that is carbon dated to this time, that is listed. Can you show ONE Silk Kite that carbon dates to 2350 bca? Are we to take this as verbatim, that is was the "Chinese" that did not exist as today's nation state but a group of nations, kingdoms and warlord because some Rando person typed it in to start?

Shall it not be questioned without any proof other then a picture from the 1960s red guard drew? We know there is Chinese immoral vampires and dragons? are these real too? they are not sighted, there is no carbon dating or Any evidence other then, pictures drawn from the 1960s and upwards.

not citation claims in history as as bad as it gets, might as well say Starwars is real. Atlantis is though to be real by many, reality is Europe never was one state or people, even after the EU formed. China has always been 100s of states and cultures for 5000 years. Its like saying some one in Spain invented something from Russia.

Might as well it up a BIG bowl of Mythic Fancy 69.169.14.137 (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Something seems fishy…

In section "Airships", there is a line that says:

"…Santos-Dumont went on to design and build several aircraft. The subsequent controversy surrounding his and others' competing claims with regard to aircraft overshadowed his great contribution to the development of airships."

Is it just me, or does this seem somewhat lopsided? What controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FavoritoHJS (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Scientific American Aeronautic Trophy

"According to the April 1907 issue of the Scientific American magazine,[76]" SA was a weekly. This is the link for the issue.

The full quote might give a more accurate impression: "These men have undoubtedly made flights with their aeroplane, and these flights have been witnessed by a considerable number of people. The general appearance of their machine is known, and other experimenters are making good progress along somewhat the same lines"

References

Aviation timeline

Just a small nitpick. On the timeline where it reaches the B2 Spirit, it's actually the outline of an F117 Nighthawk. Should we find a correct one or just leave it as is considering the casual reader wouldn't notice the difference? GansMans (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The aviation timeline needs to be redone, or eliminated if it is not possible to correct it. Besides the various spelling mistakes I've seen at a couple of spots, there are conceptual ones as well: militar should be military; sperimental should be experimental; Blerot should be Bleriot; aircraft should be airplanes, since the word aircraft includes hot-air balloons, and dirigibles. These are not just typos, and the ones I listed were from taking a glance, thus clearly there are more. -- Gciriani (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)