|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Classes
- 2 Intro
- 3 Safety
- 4 Inventor?
- 5 First flights section
- 6 History
- 7 External Links
- 8 History, take II
- 9 Costs
- 10 WikiProject class rating
- 11 Deleted sentence
- 12 Hang gliding & hang glider
- 13 Comparison of gliders, hang gliders and paragliders
- 14 Template open for editing
- 15 Deltaplane?
- 16 Mountain wave dangers?
- 17 Components
- 18 The radio section doesn't seem factual.
I believe that paragliders are considered a form of Hang Glider - but the text under the heading of "classes" doesnt acknowledge this fact. Should it be edited?
The intro reads like an 8th grader's essay. -- anonymous
I edited the intro to make it more encyclopaedic - I removed 'soar with birds and eagles' and changed 'fly for hundreds of miles' ('miles' is inherently an American distance :-D) to 'fly over great distances' - better, I think, but not quite up to scratch (according to the style manual). Thoughts? -- Jakeleonard 07:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added a comment conserning the importance of proper instruction under Hang Glider Safty.
I've noted HG pilots "may" carry a parachute. Original wording seemed to infer that all HG pilots carry parachutes which is not the case (they are optional - at least in Australia).
I've seen Gertrude Rogallo credited with inventing, c1963. Error? Trekphiler 05:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- To some degree, what the early aviation pioneers such as Otto Lilienthal did was hang-gliding, so you can't attribute any one person with having invented it. --Carnildo 07:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
What a load of rubbish saying that the inventer of the Hang glider can't be determined, have you tried? Mr John Dickenson Invented the Modern Hang glider in 1963, at Grafton, N.S.W. Australia. Dr Rogallo has always maintained that John Dickenson Invented the Hang Glider. The aircraft Otto Lilienthal flew are not connected to modern hang gliders in any way, although they were a type of hang glider. Yours sincerely, Graeme Henderson
I see someone has put in the lie that the Spratt machine with the Control Bar was well known, there is no proof of that. Also Palmer is being bundled in with Dickension again. The Palmer Wing was rubbish compared to the Dickenson Wing ant the Palmer Wing die no lead to the modern hang glider. Wikipedia still shows that it is worthless as a source of information. Graeme Henderson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The inventor of the patented flexible wing or Rogallo wing are Francis Rogallo & wife Gertrude Rogallo (March 1951). Some people adapted Rogallo flexible wing hang gliders as early as 1961 but had limited performance and control. Later in in 1963 Mr. John Dickenson took NASA's Paresev and Fleep aircraft concept and adapted other existing components such as ski kite swinging seat and control frame into a Rogallo wing to be used as a hang glider. Adapting existing elements for a new purpose qualifies as an invention, so yes, J. Dickenson invented the Modern flexible wing hang glider. See the details at History of hang gliding. BatteryIncluded 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
TROUBLE IS THOUGH, JD was not the first to adapt the elements to the flexible wing hang gldier; so he was not the inventor of such. In modern times we have the Breslau battened flexible wing hang glider that had the cable-stayed triangle control bar in front of the hung pendulum pilot. No futher element mechanically is in the JD kite. Also, the elements were in one of the eight versions of the Palmer foot-launch hang glider; and since he was prior to JD, then JD cannot be held the mechanical inventor. And even the elements were in the Ski Plane along with pontoons, prior to the JD kite glider. SkiPlane was put formally forward as a glider. The hang gliders made and flown in demonstration by Rogallo for NASA were much prior; they had the elements mechanically ...and so JD cannot be rightly held as the mechanical inventor of a nebulous "modern" hang glider. Joefaust (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
First flights section
I deleted the first flights section since it's not very encyclopedic, cites no sources, and is focused solely on India. I'm not convinced that it wasn't just vandalism. If there is to be a section on the beginnings of hangliding in specific countries, more nations should be covered. --CTho 03:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
As just a casual visitor, it seems to me that the section on history is longer than the 'main article' to which it refers. I think, therefore, history in this article can be pruned by transferring more material across. JMcC 08:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the HG History section has grown to considerable length. One reason was to clear misconceptions on HG evolution. A separate HG History article could be created. BatteryIncluded 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded. Great work on the HG history! A seperate HG history article has been created: History of flexible wing hang gliding. It would be great, if you felt like it, to move the bulk of your narrative into there. John Bentley 10:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello John. Yes, it makes sense to move the HIstory section to its own page since it grew to a considerable length. I am in the process of finishing several projects at work and will move my residence to the East coast this summer, so I could work at it later this summer. Gerry Farell BatteryIncluded 16:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gerry. I too have other projects of greater priority ... things may get done in the fullness of time :) All the best. BTW it turns out that Merging and moving pages are different formal concepts under Wiki. I mean't to suggest you (or whoever cares to) merge rather than move :) 22.214.171.124 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Moving takes seconds. Merging information takes longer. Glad to work on it later this summer is no one does it first. Gerry 126.96.36.199 04:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
History, take II
This is hardly my area of expertise, and I'm too busy to dive in Wikipedia right now, but anyone who is involved in this page...just an idea. The History of hang gliding article is excellant and indepth, and the Hang gliding article isn't horrible either. However, I find it awkward to be reading the main article, and having NO information under the history section. Perhaps add a couple of paragraph which sumarize the history page? Makes more sense to MEEEEEE. -b 18:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- You are right. It must have been deleted recently, we are having a few vandals lately. I added a short summary. BatteryIncluded 00:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I was browsing the page and noticed under the Costs section that the prices were only partially listed in US dollars. I was going to go ahead and add what was listed in Euros to US dollars when I came upon the partial listing of "5-6000 Euros (Approx. $81" and noticed that this was very much incorrect. I hesitated to change the price as I was unsure if someone had the average costs in dollars to these items, which may be better than simply converting what is listed already in Euros to US dollars. I glanced at the last edit of this particular section and it seems someone deleted part of the article. It seems this could have been an act of vandalism. -Levi 06:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm cleaning up the intro, since I found it rather difficult to read. I couldn't quite understand what this sentence meant: "Hang gliding and hang gliders form activity and devices that are larger in scope than what is controlled by artificial governing organizations' definitiions as those organizations fulfill certain worthy objectives for large parts of the activity; in particular, F.A.I. and national airspace governing organizations play a large part in what occurs in hang gliding." Perhaps it would make more sense if I knew more about hang gliding than what I've read in books? If anyone knows what it means, please fix it up and add it back. AdinaBob (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hang gliding & hang glider
|It has been suggested that some content from this article be split into a separate article entitled Hang glider. Please discuss.|
At present Hang glider redirects to this article. Would it make sense to create two separate articles: one on the sport and one on the aircraft themselves, analogous to glider and gliding? JMcC (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why, is the structure of a hang glider not a part of hang gliding? This article isn't even over 30k yet. I suppose you could do that... if you wanted to merge hang gliding with gliding though.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it is debatable, that is why I asked first, without a strong view one way or the other. However a decision on splitting an article shouldn't only be based on whether it has reached the maximum recommended size. An article on the sport could contain information about history of the sport, training, soaring, competitions, associations and records; while an article on the aircraft themselves can contain the info on the invention and subsequent developments, structure, stability, classes and instrumentation. Using an analogy, compare this with ski and skiing, or the sport of golf and golf clubs. This is not to facilitate a merger with another sport. JMcC (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is gliding and hang gliding a different sport though, or is it a different manifestation of the same sport, using different equipment? And who says that 'gliding' should be about a sport anyway? Why isn't gliding about.... you know.... gliding rather than 'gliding of sailplanes' and why isn't it called the 'sport of gliding' if as you apparently claim, that they're not the same thing. And what is it that birds do? Does the wikipedia cover that? Should the wikipedia cover that?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- But skiing is a fairly good example. Skiing is about a group of sports with a common heritage, like hang gliding and 'gliding' share a common heritage and are all called the same thing. You've done the equivalent of hacking off downhill skiing and putting it in its own article. It doesn't make any sense, and doesn't fit in with the sources we have on this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I am all in favor of two seperate articles, too. Some more examples:
- Gliding / Glider_(sailplane)
- Surfing / Surfboard
- Snowboarding / Snowboard
- Roller Skating / Inline skates
- Cycling / Bicycle
- Driving / Automobile
- Skateboarding / Skateboard
Comparison of gliders, hang gliders and paragliders
The description of hang gliders as having the airframe directly held is clearly false. In both class 2 and 5 the controls are not an integral part of the airframe. The widely held view is that paragliders have no rigid primary structure (the reference says "Strictly speaking a paraglider is an aircraft which has no primary rigid structure, is capable of soaring flight and can be foot launched from a hillside"). I've changed the section to reflect this. Jontyla (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Template:Comparison of sailplanes hang gliders and paragliders Joefaust (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Template open for editing
Who calls it that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC) I suppose it refers to the near Delta-wing shape of most Hang gliders? With regard to who would call it a Deltaplane, I suppose it varies between communities whether the term is used or not. Another term sometimes used by Para glider pilots for Hang gliders is "drying rack"...Gunnern (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Mountain wave dangers?
While I'm unable to find the book I know is somewhere in the house, I have been specifically warned about the dangers of flying in mountain waves with a Hang- or Paraglider by instructors in Norway, reason being that both are too slow to fly safely in/through a wave. The major risk is getting caught by the down-movement of the wave. The common notion by those instructors is that if you observe a lenticular cloud or is otherwise aware that there could be waves going through the air, then Hang- and Paraglider pilots should remain on the ground and let the waves remain the domain of sailplanes. I'll keep looking for the book, but for the time being it is at least worth considering if these dangers of mountain wave flying should be mentioned in the article? Gunnern (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Ki sykes (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Under the components section there is a sub section that describes Hang Gliders as being made out of Rip-Stop Nylon. This is incorrect. Modern Hang Gliders are made from a combination of Dacron (Polyester fabric) and Mylar, which is a polyester film. Here is an article by the designer for Willswing Hang Gliders that describes the fabrics they use. Hang Glider Sailcloth
The radio section doesn't seem factual.
[quote]As aircraft operating in airspace occupied by other aircraft, hang glider pilots also use the appropriate type of radio (i.e. the aircraft transceiver into Aero Mobile Service VHF band). It can, of course, be fitted with a PTT switch to a finger and speakers inside the helmet. The use of aircraft transceivers is subject to regulations specific to the use in the air such as frequencies restrictions, but has several advantages over FM (i.e. frequency modulated) radios used in other services. First is the great range it has (without repeaters) because of its amplitude modulation (i.e. AM). Second is the ability to contact, inform and be informed directly by other aircraft pilots of their intentions thereby improving collision avoidance and increasing safety. Third is to allow greater liberty regarding distance flights in regulated airspaces, in which the aircraft radio is normally a legal requirement. Fourth is the universal emergency frequency monitored by all other users and satellites and used in case of emergency or impending emergency.[/quote]
Why does Aero mobile service VHF band need to be included? It's a commercial product.
It says that it has great range because it is AM instead of being FM. It will have a slightly improved range because weak signals are not clipped. (Loosing the sound quality of fm as a trade off for range). Letting other pilots know of your intentions is the MAIN REASON FOR HAVING THIS RADIO. That's why it exists. Not for better range... This is evident to anyone in the industry.