Talk:Flying car

RfC on the inclusion of Whitehead's No. 21 machine in this article

A two part question: (a) Should Gustav Whitehead's No. 21 machine be discussed in the article 'history' section? (b) Should Gustav Whitehead's No. 21 machine be included in the list of 'flying cars' found in the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• No to (a) and to (b). In brief the inclusion of Whitehead's machine in this article gives entirely undue prominence to fringe claims regarding supposed manned powered flight, some two years before the Wright brothers first such flight, by a machine which by overwhelming consensus amongst credible aviation historians never flew at all (see e.g. ).
  

To go into further detail, the inclusion of Whitehead's machine on this list seems to be based on arguments that even if it didn't fly, there are sources which either label it a 'flying car', or otherwise ascribe some roadgoing capabilities to it. It is my opinion that such sources are being misused, since none are written by recognised aviation historians, and all are basing their claims around material ultimately derived from a single sensationalist article on the supposed flight in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald of August 1901. Reasons given for questioning this source are numerous (see e.g. ) but in essence the article appears to be a tall tale inserted into the newspaper for entertainment purposes. It can be found, headed by a prominent 'flying witch' image, in a section of the newspaper which had been used within a few weeks to host stories concerning 'bigfoot' and 'yetis', 'dog-men', 'man-eating sharks', and kleptomaniac chicken-thieves.

Beyond the questionable sourcing for Whitehead's No. 21 machine's supposed flying and/or roadgoing capabilities, there have been multiple reasons given to doubt the credibility of his many claims. It should be noted that Whitehead had previously claimed to have flown in a steam-powered machine in 1899. In 1902, the year after the No. 21's supposed flight Whitehead claimed to have flown a new machine twice - once for seven miles, over Long Island Sound. None of these supposed flights have been verified in any substantive manner, no photographic evidence has been found, and multiple supposed witnesses have denied his flights ever took place. Whitehead's failure to either publicly demonstrate his supposedly-successful machines nor to continue their development has likewise been seen as further evidence of their fictitious nature. Ultimately, even a major investor in Whitehead, Stanley Yale Beach was to state that "I do not believe that any of [Whitehead's] machines ever left the ground" Another comment, from Samuel Cabot, who had once employed Whitehead, was more blunt: "…a pure romancer and a supreme master of the gentle art of lying."

In conclusion, Wikipedia is being asked, based on the flimsiest of evidence, to include Whitehead's non-flying machine in a list of 'flying cars' for no better reason than that credulous sources have been found repeating tall tales, and apparently (if one is to believe earlier discussions) because the actually reliable sources don't explicitly state that Whitehead's non-flying-machine didn't have roadgoing capabilities either. This shoehorning in by 'lack of contrary evidence' regarding something of no particular historical relevance to the history of flight is absurd. Whitehead's exploits may merit discussion in their own article as a historical oddity, but Wikipedia policies are clear enough about not giving fringe material undue prominence in more general articles the manner being done here. Articles on 'flying cars' should not be hosting flights of fancy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I notice that you are still using the term "non-flying machine" a lot. While you're not wrong, the way you are using it and your "Beyond the questionable sourcing" comment seem to imply that the fact that it never flew is at least part of the reason why it should be excluded from the list. As I mentioned in the discussion above, there are five other unflown flying cars on this list, as well as seven unbuilt flying cars (three canceled and four in development). What is your opinion on the inclusion of those "non-flying machines" in the list? - ZLEA _T\^C 00:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an RfC on Whitehead - if his claims were true, they would be of great historical significance. Other content on more recent non-flying projects is in comparison of little concern, and not under discussion here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If the fact that the Whitehead No. 21 never flew is to be considered part of the reason that it should be excluded, then we should expand the RfC accordingly to cover all non-flying flying cars, as it impacts the criteria for inclusion in such a way that affects more than one aircraft on this list. If we are to allow the other unflown flying cars, then the argument that it was never flown is moot. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that we discussed the wording of the RfC above, and at no point was this widening of scope suggested, I would consider attempts to broaden its scope unjustified, and potentially disruptive. If you wish to start another RfC on a broader question, you are free to do so, after appropriate prior discussion. Meanwhile, please respond to the questions as previously agreed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

and potentially disruptive I will remind you to WP:AGF. Had I known that you would continue to leverage the "it never flew" argument, I would not have agreed to limiting the RfC to this set of questions. If the fact that it never flew is mentioned in the closing statement as a factor in the decision, then I will open a new RfC regarding the inclusion of the other unflown flying cars. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We agreed the questions in advance. I made no promises as to how I was going to answer them, and frankly the suggestion that I am doing anything improper by discussing the overwhelming consensus regarding the non-flying status of a supposed 'flying car' in a list of 'flying cars' is absurd beyond measure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you are doing anything wrong, I only pointed out that your argument potentially has larger implications than you seem to realize and it needs to be addressed before it becomes a bigger problem down the line. Am I not free to suggest that the RfC be amended to avoid such complications? - ZLEA _T\^C 02:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have made my position clear. There has been no prior discussion regarding any RfC with a broader scope. It would be improper to amend it now, based on nothing but hypothetical 'implications' that seem to rest on the assumption that content decisions cannot be made on a case-by-case basis. Wikipedia works like that all the time. It is supposed to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No and No -- AndyTheGrump said it far better than I could. But to summarize, there were lots of spurious accounts of working flying machines back then. Used to liven up cheap newspapers on slow news days, and drum up investors for tinkerers. There's no good evidence that this was ever a working aircraft. Furthermore, even if the machine flew, the ability to propel itself briefly along the ground is not the definition of a flying car. ApLundell (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

As defined in the article, "A flying car or roadable aircraft is a type of vehicle which can function both as a road vehicle and as an aircraft." Propelling itself along the road with wings folded is far more than your "briefly along the ground" as if taxiing, while the definition just given (and hence the article content) includes roadable aircraft. Your summary denial is not supported by the article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes and No - The current wording (emphasis mine) is:

"In 1901 German immigrant to the U.S. Gustave Whitehead purportedly flew a powered aircraft, which was described as able to propel itself along roads to the site of the flying experiment. Consensus among historians is that Whitehead's no. 21 did not achieve sustained self-powered flight."

This is is supported at the very least by the Popular Mechanics article. As Andy stated in the discussion above, the article does quote a sensationalist article in Bridgeport Sunday Herald, which can fairly be described as unreliable. However, it also quoted a Scientific American article by Stanley Y. Beech which corroborated the claim that the Whitehead No. 21 was capable of "self-powered on the ground, like an automobile". Obviously, we should not (and currently do not) present these claims as fact, but the fact that this has been described as a flying car (as the HuffPost article does) or something similar to the concept warrants the inclusion of these claims in the 'history' section. That said, I don't believe the existing sources are enough to warrant the inclusion in the list of flying cars, as most only describe purported similar capabilities to the modern definition of a flying car rather than any intention for the aircraft to function as a road vehicle. If any reliable sources can be found that confirm that it as intended to function as such, then I would support its inclusion in the list. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes and No per arguments of ZLEA. If something like the sentence above isn't included, then all other non-flying cars should also be removed from the article. Skyerise (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to both. The fringe argument about whether it flew has no relevance to whether it was intended to be a flying car. About a third of machines in this article never flew, some never even left the drawing board. This is normal for our articles on the various kinds of aircraft. What matters for inclusion is notability.

Just because mainstream writers on the flight controversy are seldom concerned with its roadability, does not make the roadability either controversial or non-notable. We have zero - zero - sources denying its description as a flying car, and plenty of neutral sources which describe the No.21 as a flying car, roadable aircraft, flying automobile and similar, and/or give details of its "ground engine" in this context.,, while sources deemed unreliable over the claims of flight may also provide reliable information on its roadability. As they do here:,

For your information, See also a previous round of discussion on this same issue in 2022, at Fringe Noticeboard as well as here. The outcome of that was to keep Whithehead in this article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes to A and No to B: The sources are sufficient to support Wikipedia text that describes Whitehead's aircraft as "roadable". I don't believe the sources support a description of the machine as a "flying car". So the article, in my view, has sort of a built-in contradiction by including two non-identical concepts under a single article title. In my view, the two concepts are not the same thing, and I don't know that any of the article sources say the terms and concepts are interchangeable. Therefore, I don't support inclusion of the Whitehead machine in the article's list section titled "Flying Cars", because the sources don't support that phrasing. I think we're inviting some reader confusion (and editorial conflict) by having an article in which, by the wording and section titling, the qualification for an item's inclusion in a prose section apparently conflicts with the qualification for its inclusion in a list section. However, as long as "roadable aircraft" remains a core concept in the article, the Whitehead machine can be included in the prose History section as meeting that description, as shown in the sources, whether or not it flew. DonFB (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Several roadable aircraft ale given in the list, so I have amended its heading to reflect its content. This might change your judgement. But the big difficulty here is to find a consistent and supportable definition of the distinction between a flying car vs a roadable aircraft. Many examples are borderline and can be seen either way, while some sources regard them as different names for the same thing. For example the European Flying Car Association notes that "Our members have launched the idea of organizing a European Grand Prix Competition for roadable aircraft (aka flying car)" [My italics].. Claims of any distinction need to offer RS which trumps such sources, and need to give enough detail to classify each machine listed. Unless and until then, claims that they are different classes are unsupported. You know, when Jackson says the No.21 flew, everything he says is deemed unreliable, but when he explicitly says that the No.21 was a roadable aircraft and distinct from a flying car, he is accepted without question. Sourcing here is a mess, and we need to bear this in mind. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  'Accepted without question' by who? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Brief comments on the sources cited above:

1. Freeman. I see no reason whatsoever to see HuffPost comments by a non-expert as any sort RS on events alleged to have occurred over a century ago. And a statement that something was 'purported' to have happened is not an assertion that it did, anyway.

2. Bongarz. Again, a statement that someone wrote something. Not an assertion that it was in fact true. No indication that PopMech is doing anything more than reporting what had previously written, and nothing to suggest that they had done any historical research themselves, or had the credentials to do so.

3. Glass. This book is self described 'juvenile nonfiction'. I can find no evidence that Glass has any credentials as any sort of aviation historian.

4. O'Dwyer. Mere repetition of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald story. O'Dwyer was one of the Whitehead proponents that responses by multiple aviation historians were diretly aimed at. A fringe source, repeating material to support his fringe claim.

5. Jackson. The editor of Janes. A journalist, and not a historian. His Whitehead-promoting editorial was explicitly disowned by the publishers.

As I wrote in my initial comment, questionable sources regurgitating material already rejected my mainstream historiography are being used to justify inclusion of Whitehead's machine in this article. As for the lack of 'denials' from serious aviation historians on the supposed roadgoing characteristics of the No. 21, this argument seems to be based on the presumption that such researchers might concern themselves with the outcome of obscure arguments on Wikipedia article talk pages. They had no reason to comment on whether a non-flying machine was capable of emulating an automobile: it would have been of no historical significance if it could, since it didn't fly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The flying car/roadable aircraft angle has never been rejected by a mainstream writer. Andy is quite wrong to suggest that it has. The value of these sources is to verify notability, not necessarily absolute truth. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what I am suggesting. Mainstream writers simply haven't written about supposed roadgoing capabilities, since they would be of no particular interest one way or another in something that didn't fly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"The value of these sources is to verify notability, not necessarily absolute truth." Correct, though I would say, "verify the Wikipedia text". The sources may not have the academic rigor of peer-reviewed journals, but it seems like a bridge too far to reject, as Andy would, half a dozen or more established media outlets--none of which has run afoul of RSP. DonFB (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP is for sources which have been discussed repeatedly. It is not an exhaustive list of every possible publication that might be cited. And furthermore, it is Wikipedia policy that reliability be determined in context - the matter to be addressed is whether a source can be considered reliable for the particular statements it is being cited for. And don't you consider the fact that e.g. the sources own publisher went on to disown a source we cite to be of relevance when discussing the appropriateness of its use? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources--Jane's, Flight Journal, History.net, Popular Mechanics; Air Enthusiast, HuffPost, to name several--meet qualifications as reliable sources. Several of them are specifically aviation-related, which supports the concept that they are, as you wrote, "considered reliable for the particular statements". We are not using a reliable gardening magazine for a statement about aviation history, for example. The content of the Whitehead articles in the sources does not necessarily represent accepted facts, nor is it required to. The sources are reporting and opining on a historical controversy, and we are summarizing what they say, with appropriate qualifiers/disclaimers in our text, viz: "purported". DonFB (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

So, do you or don't you consider the fact that one of the sources listed - the Jackson article - was disowned by the publisher to be relevant to a discussion on reliability of that particular article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The publisher distanced itself from the opinion piece; it did not declare the piece false or fraudulent, or retract it. The piece is reliable for the opinion of Jane's editor, a professional with broad knowledge of the subject matter--aviation. DonFB (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

I am conflicted about this. I'm not aware that Tom Crouch or Charles Gibbs-Smith ever said anything about "flying car" or "roadable" vehicle in their dismissals of the Whitehead claims. On the other hand, six sources can be identified that do mention the machine's ability to self-propel on streets or roads: Paul Jackson in Jane's; David Freeman in HuffPost quoting Jackson; the original Bridgeport Herald newspaper article; the Andy Glass book; Frank DeLear in History.net ("possibly the world’s first roadable airplane"); and William O'Dwyer in FlightJournal.com ("He drove his machine along the road"). In another category is Weissenborn in Air Enthusiast, who says the "airplane" was "pushed through the streets". Applying my editorial judgement, I think it makes no difference whether #21 ever flew in deciding whether to mention it in this article, because, as other editors have noted, several "flying cars" named in this article never flew. Delving further into my personal opinion, I do not believe Whitehead intended the machine to be a car, or any kind of utilitarian road vehicle, even though six sources offer some support for the idea of a "roadable" vehicle. It seems to me that the intent of this article is to name and describe vehicles that are or were intended to be used as cars, not merely as vehicles that could self-propel to a flying field and accelerate for takeoff using that propulsion. So where does this leave me? I still haven't decided, but thought I'd post this for the sake of discussion. DonFB (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This article includes roadable aircraft in its opening sentence, and Roadable aircraft redirects here. On this basis, whatever one thinks the ground engine was intended for, to reject it one has to accept the stronger claim that it was neither a flying car nor a roadable aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't bothered to review the intro or redirects as I should have. DonFB (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I find this this sentence in the History section problematic: Consensus among historians is that Whitehead's no. 21 did not achieve sustained self-powered flight. Sources: Scientific American says that Dan Schlenoff was a contributing editor, Flying Magazine says that Ashley Burns is just a writer, and since Crouch is the only bonafide historian; one historian does not make a "consensus among historians". We shouldn't be using sources like this to imply two of the people are historians, when their own publications don't recognize or identify them as such. We can use Crouch to make an allegation "that Whitehead's no. 21 did not achieve sustained self-powered flight", but it should be attributed per WP:ACCORDINGTO.

A couple of newspaper clippings that pre-date the Bridgeport Herald August 1901 article:

• December 6, 1899 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• June 21, 1901 Vermont Phoenix
• July 26, 1901 The Minneapolis Journal

— Isaidnoway (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are other newspaper articles describing Whitehead's claims. Some of which pre-date the August 1901 one that his supporters now cite as evidence that he was the first to achieve sustained powered manned flight. This isn't news to anyone familiar with the topic. Or surprising to anyone familiar with the habits of many newspapers at the time, which (as is still true now) would publish all sorts of entertaining tall tales. We don't base historical article content on tabloid primary sources making extraordinary claims unsupported by any other evidence. And no, we don't need to attribute to Tom Crouch the overwhelming mainstream consensus that Whitehead's claims have been unverified. I cite multiple highly credible sources directly refuting the claims regarding Whitehead in my first post. I suggest you read them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to the sources used in the History section now. Two of them are not historians, and it is misleading to our readers to represent them as such. And Crouch, or anyone employed by The Smithsonian, has a vested interest in discrediting Whitehead, and anyone else for that matter, due to The Smithsonian's agreement not to recognize any successful pre-Wright powered flight, as part of its acceptance of the Wright Flyer. And I did read your first post, and I don't find your argument compelling enough to remove any mention of Whitehead from this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, we can add more sources, if you don't like the existing ones. Suitable sources for the Wrights being the first to achieve sustained manned powered flight must run into the hundreds, if not thousands. And given that the Smithsonian says nothing that the other sources don't say, claims that they have a 'vested interest' in arguing against the Whitehead claims are clearly meritless. We don't reject sources because proponents of fringe claims concoct conspiracy theories about them AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not "liking" the present sources; we don't use misuse sources like this; to imply that the people who wrote the articles are historians, when they're not. And yes, WP:BIASED sources like Crouch are allowed, so if he is the only actual historian we have making an allegation, his opinion should be attributed to him, per WP:ACCORDINGTO. Or in the alternative, the wording of the sentence could be changed, removing "historians", and the present sources can be kept.

And I'm not sure where you got the idea that proponents are concocting conspiracy theories about The Smithsonian, when Crouch himself in 1987 acknowledges and admits The Smithsonian has a vested interest here in this article - if the Smithsonian ever again recognized any other aircraft as having been capable of powered, sustained, and controlled flight with a man on board before December 17, 1903, the executors of the estate would have the right to take possession of the machine once again. The Smithsonian signed the agreement. And like I said above, it doesn't make any difference if it is Whitehead or anybody else, the Smithsonian has a binding contract with the estate that forbids them from stating anything other than the Wrights were the first to achieve sustained manned powered flight. This is well documented in multiple reliable sources, and the Smithsonian has also been roundly criticized in multiple sources for agreeing to that stipulation just to appease the egos of the Wright brothers. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

#21 Status in list

I suggest the Status column for the Whitehead machine be shown as "Built", instead of "Not flown" (there are multiple photographs, after all). In the "Notes" column, let's add: "Historians dismiss claims that it flew." (With appropriate referencing) DonFB (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Other items

• AutoFlight (Prosperity, Matrix and Carry All) world's first formation flightworld’s largest flying car completed China’s first 2-ton eVTOL cargo trial World’s First 5-Ton eVTOL
• Cell Craft
• Skyblazer
• Rictor Skyrider X1 World's First Amphibious Passenger Flying Motorcycle ~2026-33007-63 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
• Aska 5
• XPeng AeroHT
• Streetwing
• EDAG AIR One
• Urban Aeronautics CityHawk
• Hongqi Tianlin 1
• GAC Govy AirCar / GAC Gove

Safety measures ~2026-33007-63 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Given the recent proliferation of me-too 'flying car' proposals demonstrated above, few of which seem to go very far, and many of which appear to be little more than exercises in shilling for investors, I am increasingly moving towards an opinion that this article would be best served by limiting inclusion (at least for more recent designs) to projects that have moved beyond the paper aeroplane stage, and actually flown in the configuration proposed: i.e. not just as a prototype, but as a certified passenger-carrying vehicle. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a platform for hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for hype(?) and futurist fantasy stated as reality

This is one of the worst wiki articles I’ve ever seen because much of it is talking about fantasy like it’s reality. “Regulatory regimes are being developed”— no they’re not. “For widespread adoption envisioned”—by who? And then the sources are futurist fantasy nonsense books like “what the year 2000 will look like” written a decade before, in other words, the sources are fortune tellers. The article needs a big revision for how each sentence is framed (with due weight and attributed biased perspective) similar to an article about a cult. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)