[clippyplz]

If they are the first to build an airplane that "actually worked", then why would it be inappropriate to say they invented an airplane?

It wouldn't be appropriate to say "they were responsible for 100% of the technological development and research that led to this machine" but if that's what "invented" means then nobody has ever invented anything.

[adrian_b]

Their invention patent (US 821,393) correctly claims the invention of a 3-axis airplane orientation control system, not the invention of the airplane, which is treated as a well-known class of flying-machines, which is improved by their invention.

An airplane without good aircraft controls could start to fly without problems, but it would normally crash sooner or later, either due to flight instabilities or because it had to eventually land somewhere.

[xandrius]

Say, if I invent everything to make a bike work but the wheels just happen to be a teeny tiny too small to actually allow someone to ride it uninterrupted.

You come and adjust them. Did you just invent the bike? Or did you build upon my previous invention(s) and perfected it, making us both partial inventors?

[mannykannot]

You only get partial credit unless you figured out what, precisely, needed to be done, but had someone else do it for you.

[nyeah]

'if that's what "invented" means then nobody has ever invented anything.'

People invent things. But "airplane" turned out to be much more than one thing. Not all of them were invented by Curtiss (a local favorite), or by Santos-Dumont, or by Lilienthal, Caproni, the Wrights, or whoever.

[nyeah]

Not really disagreeing, but history and technology are both messy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_the_first_airplane_f...