Talk:Rogallo wing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


There is no mention of the optumim angle or scaleable demensions —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:46, 20 October 2003 (UTC)

See also Soft_single_skin_kite 11:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Definitely merge "Parawing" into "Rogallo wing" with a redirect, there is not enough material in the former article to justify leaving it separate. I will merge it if no-one objects within a week or so. User:Jaganath 13:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Care should be made to clear the hyperbole regarding the Dickenson story.


I thought I would switch the order of inventors since Gertrude is listed as first inventor on two of the early patents. This doesn't mean that she was the "primary inventor", but I suspect that her contribution was substantial given the rarity of women inventors in the US in the late 1940's.--Nowa 12:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Invention vs. Development[edit]

Moved this discussion from the main article body into this discussion tab:

"There are two sorts of invention, one is ornamental appearance invention that may or may not function. Then there are process patents that speak to invention of process and function. The Dickenson ornamental appearance for a Rogallo kite and hang glider was new, but he did not invent the function, the machine, the process; those were extant before him in aviation and in hang gliding; reference the fact that Barry Palmer in 1960-61 rejected the ski-kite trapeze but still put the trapeze at his back while he used struts to it to explore centers of lift by having his body move in front of the triangle while on triangle bars; reference his primary data voiced video and e-mail testimony to primary reseacher John Bentley. Dickenson had ornamental invention, not process invention on the seat and ski-kite trapeze."

BatteryIncluded 22:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Dickenson did not even have much ornamental invention, if at all. Clearly the Breslau 1908 battened flexible wing hang glider had the cable-stayed triangle control frame at a hang glider meet. And in 1962 James Hobson had a "Rogallo Hang Glider" with triangle control frame. And earlier at the start of the 1960s before Palmer and Purcell who had the triangle control frame in hang glider, was John Worth of NASA who at many scales and craft showed the triangle control frame beneath the four-boom Rogallo airfoil. Hung seats from hang glider were "obvious" in hang gliding from 1800s and taught by Chanute and others. When obvious is the character of a slight ornamental, then such is not an invention step. So, no ornamental invention for Dickenson; such would also invalidate Bennett's later ornamental patent. (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


Graeme Henderson keeps throwing legal threats, insults and vandalizing this article and any other related to hang gliding in part due to the terminology established decades ago, that is the Rogallo Wing airfoil adapted for use in hang gliders by John Dickenson. History is not selective; the airfoil invention by Rogallo is mentioned as well as its application on hang gliders by Dickenson. His intolerance to factual history, which is extremely well documented on NASA and Smithsonian Air & Space Institute web sites among others, is a childish act he has kept for over one year now. Any reader can click on the quoted references to expand awarenes on this topic. (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Delta Wing[edit]

In some languages (German, Dutch) a hang glider (which originally used a Rogallo wing) is referred to as a "delta wing". In English "delta wing" only refers to the wing shape of some supersonic aircraft (like Concorde). Since this is the English version of Wikipedia, my reference to "delta wing" in this article was justly removed. Tavernsenses (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Original Rogallo patent[edit]

Oh, dear. According to NASA's published history here, "In 1948, Rogallo and his wife filed a patent for a V-shaped flexible wing, which was awarded (U.S. Patent No. 2,546,078) in March 1951." But checking out the patent here, it has nothing to do with the classic conical delta wing, but instead covers only a square kite with a cylindrical curve. It mentions rectangular and elliptical shapes as possibilities, but of deltas I see absolutely nothing. The patent also describes a wholly collapsible system with no supporting rods at all, whereas the classic delta has several. So the story painted by NASA is just plain wrong. I will amend the article accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That is the original flexible/Rogallo wing patent, that was further developed the next few years by independent engineers or projects. The "square" shape allowed for a double billow to form. The battens were incorporated later for aplications that were NOT to be packed on a Gemini/Apollo space capsule. Having said that, your edit to the article seems OK to me. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The original Rogallo square had cylindrical billows and the patent comments on the need for a tail to give stability. A key advance of the delta shape is the conical taper of the billows: this in itself confers directional stability. FYI I am trying to get back to the origin of his delta form but the history is dogged by false accounts. As late as 1952 the Rogallos' kite patents still made no mention of it. ISTR his early spacecraft studies did not use it either. By ca. 1960-61 people were beginning to develop deltas inspired by his talks. When did he first come up with it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I don't know the implications/use of his patent in the 1940s, but Rogalo's 1952 flexwing patent relies in a double conical airfoil: "A kite comprising an airfoil member of flexible material capable of being arched by a supporting airstream and being shaped so as to effect a conical arch of the surface thereof transversely across the airfoil member, ..." Source: [1].
I understand that it was around 1959 when NASA began to take a look at his flexible wing concept, and different formats were explored by various contractors and by Rogallo. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
How about that, thank you. I missed the cone, serves me right for skimming through it. But it is a single cone, not a double one. And still essentially a square, with a couple of bits nibbled away. They note that the cone improves stability, but a tail of a kind is still needed. That stll leaves a span of ca.1953-1959 for the double-cone delta to appear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Look at the double cones (1951) in the figures 5 and 6 at:
Cheers, BatteryIncluded
Nope, those are cylinders not cones. Aerodynamically, there is all the difference in the world. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rogallo wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)