Jump to content

Talk:History of hang gliding

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Quick Reference

[edit]

Intro

[edit]

The following few key parts of the Wikipedia help have been used in the creation of this article:

Note I used 2 of the 3 main ways of citing sources. Embedded HTML links & Harvard referencing

Reference Templates

[edit]

I used these forms under the Reference heading. These are take from Template messages/Sources of articles John Bentley 13:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Web and News Reference

[edit]
  • "Title". Title of Complete Work. June 1, 2004. Retrieved 2006-01-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
    • The Title of the Complete Work may be a major section of a web page or it may be the name of the web page itself.
    • The publishyear can be the full date: e.g. "June 1, 2004" instead of "2004" if available.
    • The date can be in ISO 8601 format YYYY-MM-DD: eg: "2004-06-01".
  • McGee, Maggie (February 10, 2005). "Seabed 'scarred' by tsunami quake". CNN. pp. 12–27.

Harvard Reference

[edit]


Article vs Timeline

[edit]

Just moved the History section I wrote for the main HG article to this article. It needs further work to blend in. Work in progress... To discuss:

1) Is it OK to have a "text" article followed by a "timeline" article? Or should they be blend into one? 2) The added text has a large amount of reference material enclosed that does not show in the Reference section because the formatting is different. I need help of an experienced editor to figure how to show these enclosed references. 3) Some photos are duplicated. 4) Content table will be re-organized as blending is performed. BatteryIncluded 14:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topless

[edit]

The current entry regarding "topless" hang gliders is incorrect.

It states "This flexibility is required for the weight shift of the pilot to create small differences in the sail's billow, which in turn lets the hang glider turn to the right or to the left." In fact, "differences in billow" is unrelated to the main reason weight shifting can be used to enter a turn. Weight shifting works perfectly well in a completely rigid machine (or any machine) by moving the center of gravity (left or right in this context). The center of lift remains in the same place resulting in a TORQUE about the X-axis (front-to-back axis). This ROLLING MOMENT quickly results in a constant ROLL RATE due to an opposing rolling moment which is proportional to roll rate (called roll damping). So a left or right shift in weight results in a proportional roll rate in ANY flying machine.

To correct, suggest deleting "This flexibility is required for the weight shift of the pilot to create small differences in the sail's billow, which in turn lets the hang glider turn to the right or to the left.".

— Italic text 24.41.15.147

24.41.15.147 Really good to have your contribution.

  1. Any discussions ABOUT the article, by Wiki convention, are placed here, not in the article itself.
  2. I haven't reflected too much on these words under the "Topless" section. I just took 'em from an old version of the hang gliding article. Further I do not have specialist knowledge here.
  3. In this case you would have been welcome just to make the edit as you saw fit. We all equally "own" in the right to how the article is.
  4. I've made your suggested deletions to the article. I've gone a bit further, the discussion about wing flexibility doesn't belong here I think. If it is to be anywhere it should be in the main hang gliding article.
  5. If, theoretically, we where to change the sentence,"This flexibility is required ... ", then I would suggest: "This flexibility accentuates the effect of the shifting weight of the pilot to create small differences in the sail's billow, which in turn assists the hang glider turn to the right or to the left."? After all the "flex" in the wing is there for a purpose.

John Bentley 12:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability

[edit]

Please note that all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable via reliable sources. Forums (such as Yahoo! groups) are not considered to be reliable sources in the vast majority of cases. Please do not remove properly sourced content unless there is an issue with undue weight. Also, please use edit summaries, be civil and avoid personal attacks. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Wnęk

[edit]

As a person of polish descent, I'm all in favor of attributing the invention of control of wing trailing edges to Jan Wnęk, but I think we will need very strong documentation to support this. The reason I say this, is that the critital invention of the Wright brothers was the invention of controllable trailing wing edges. See Wright_brothers#The_patent and us|821,393. This patent was litigated, which means that the alleged infringer used every means at his disposal for find a record in any language in any country that taught or suggested the prior control of trailing wing edges. If they could have found it, they would have been able to overturn the patent. They didn't. The patent was upheld. I respectfully suggest, therefore, that we leave the description out of this article (including, alas, the picture) pending identification of an authoritative source.--Nowa 12:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have written to several administrators of the Karkow Museum asking for copies -or at least transcripts- of the relevant church records and of a copy of the old calendar made in honor of Jan Wnek's flights. I obtained no answer at all from any museum administrator. It is questionable when a museum does not display critical documents claiming for a specific invention, and very questionable when they refuse to provide information to formal request from a serious researcher. I agree with you.BatteryIncluded 14:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conduit Condor

[edit]

George Uveges, photographer, took an excellent photograph of Richard Miller's Conduit Condor flying wing. The Conduit Condor is to be studied for its non-Rogallo-ness. The way that it is now grouped in a series in a sentence misleads the flying-wingness of the device. Photo rights of use were given to Joe Faust (me). I am still green on how to get a photo stuck in wikis. I think I filed a copy in one of the two groups: HangGliderHistory or HangGlidingMuseum; I will look. Joefaust 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long commenting removed and placed here.

[edit]

The long comments in the article section more properly belong on this discussion page; they are here for editors to work as they wish:

--JD's adaptation and innovations to the already existing flex-wing are not a novel 'invention' but an evolution of the flex-wing.--

--"A" because other hang glider revolutions were underway evidenced by the discussions and experiments in Soaring Society of America, for one, where postwar energies were allowing time for getting back to play basics on the gliding hills. One of the other revolutions had zero to do with the Rogallo wing, but with fixed winged hang gliders. Another revolution of hang gliders was sparked earlier with the inventions of Domina Jalbert with the fully flexible hang glider types. These other revolutions should not be overlooked. -- --Unrelated existing elements put together for a new purpose means a new invention. However, related elements were already put together for exactly hang gliding; Palmer had the wing and triangle control frame; George A. Spratt already had the elements for any hang glider; Paresev already had the very developed wing and the pendulumed mass-shifting of the pilot along with the reduced TCF-to-stick control for hung-pilot flying in kiting over land or water into free-flying from release from tow vehicle. --

[ ] ""effective innovationsnNEEDS PROOF overNEEDS PROOF existing hang gliders were enhanced controlNEEDS PROOF VERIFICATION""

DISCUSSION, if needed, can be done here on points. There is a WEIGHT challenge on the Dickenson situation. Claiming innovation when prior art was extant and known to engineers is challenging. Repetition of overclaim has brought a tendency to overweigh the Dickenson situation. THAT Spratt already gave single-point hanging behind triangle control frame weight-shift control of aircraft and hang gliders, and THAT Paresev 1B already gave topless efficient Rogallo wing that fully covered whatever JD did with the wing, and THAT the Paresev 1B wing was fully collapsible and portable, then such items cannot be mechanical innovations by Dickenson and should not be so claimed. Someone keeps inserting overclaim for Dickenson.. The constant rework and result relative weights of facts is a lot of work by editors. The same overclaims are in an article on the Internet that is by the same writer who has been inserting similar overclaims in this article and other articles. Even Spratt's contribution had priors to it! The Horten hang gliders foot-launched had fine control. The Paresev had fine control. Palmer's HGs were lightweight. Joefaust (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Horten foot-launch gliders of the 1950s

[edit]

Some work is needed to bring in the relative importance of the Horten foot-launch hang glider of the 1950s. The timeline needs Horten inputs.

Joefaust (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, could you contact Bill Bennett and ask him if his flying the Horton wing had an influence in his producing flexwings? I cannot think of any other correlation, other than the Stork gliders of Wasserkupee. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

Some pre-review comments, before the main show...

There isn't a WikiProject of some sort that can help with the development of the article?

Also, a quick glance reveals a lot of errors with periods and commas. If you want to try to get to them before I do, go for it. —Rob (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    See below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Wnek paragraph isn't cited. A style of references should be established and applied on references in the article, for example, using {{cite web}}. Why are refs 34/35 in the middle of a sentence, not at the end?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Out of curiosity, what about the "parallel developments" doesn't belong in the rest of the article?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    "These flights were short and often ended in a less than elegant arrival but it was flying nonetheless." Not only a run-on sentence, but it probably needs to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic. "It was on October 4, 1957 when the Russian satellite Sputnik shocked the United States and the space race caught the imagination of its government, causing major increases in U.S. government spending on scientific research, education and on the immediate creation of NASA." -- this sentence needs to be toned down a little bit.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I reviewed all of the images to see if they were valid. They are, but there's way, way, way, way too many images (I don't advocate a "wall of images".) Pick one relevant image per section (unless there are particularly notable historical images) and use it.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Section 1

[edit]
  • 'Thus, in the 1920s and 1930s, while aviators and aircraft makers in the rest of the world were working to improve the performance of powered aircraft, the Germans were designing, developing and flying ever more efficient gliders and discovering ways of using the natural forces in the atmosphere to make them fly farther and faster, undergoing a "renaissance" of gliding aviation thus soaring became an organized sport at Wasserkuppe, Germany.' -- this is one sentence, and it shouldn't be.
  • "At the beginning of the 21st century, the sport remains popular and experimental hang glider research and development continues." In the lead, this sentence seems to be just thrown out there without very many details. It probably should be deleted.
  • "Wasserkuppe" the section header shouldn't be linked, per the MOS.
  • Actually, there are a few run-on sentences in the text.
  • Use {{convert}} for uncoverted units (meters).
  • Wiki Gary, Indiana, U.S.A.
  • Wiki and non-breaking space dates per WP:MOS (April 11, 2008)
  • Rogallo wing is wikilinked at least 3 6 8 times. Should be wikified the first time, and only the first time.
  • Small letters after semi-colons
  • Also, unlink standalone years per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
  • "By 1961 NASA had already made test flights of an experimental STOL 'aerial utility aircraft' called Ryan XV-8 (the Flying Jeep or Fleep) and by March 1962, of a weight-shift glider called Paresev in which NASA engineers, under direction of Charles Richard, integrated a single hang point subassembly for weight-shift control; the 1B wing was topless (no kingpost), had scalloped sail of Dacron, and had battens for anti-luffing." -- also a very long run-on sentence. I won't put down any more, but in general sentences should be shorter than they have been.
  • "He used aluminum tubing and no wires for construction as he did fear kinking during assembly." -- try "...construction, fearing kinking during assembly".
  • "Limited on budget" should be "Limited in budget"
  • Text in the article should not be bolded per WP:LEAD
  • "(Spratt so hung pilot in 1929)" Parenthetical, but a fragment, and I'm not sure what it means.
  • Don't start sentences with "but".
  • "(designer: Felix Ruehle)" should be integrated into the preceding sentence. Try "The Exxtacy, designed by Felix Ruehle..."
  • "First flights from Mt. Kilimanjaro in the 1970s and Caril Ridley’s historic flights in India met with headlines and that age-old dream of human flight captured public imagination." -- needs to be toned down a little
  • The last paragraph in "Popularity" is one sentence.

Overall, the article could use a thorough copyedit. One is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors, but I've given you some ideas.

Conclusion

[edit]

The article contains a lot of very useful information. It needs to be tied together under the rules of the encyclopedia's manual of style, and copyedited by an editor stronger in English than me. Good luck and good job so far! —Rob (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the valuable assesment and feedback. I know it took long time and dedication. Review and changes will beguin immediately according to required style, but it will take time. At a later date, another application for "Good Article" will be submitted. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small note - I just looked up MOS:LINK, and as it turns out, duplicates of some links are acceptable, in general, once per subsection. However, I still would exercise restraint in wikilinking. —Rob (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article still needs a major rework; one of the primary problems is that the contemporary nature of the sport is at odds with with Wiki verifiability guidelines- simply put, the article is being constructed by those with direct experience/participation in the history, and -while possibly authoritative sources- they often present conjecture or conclusions without citing verifiable sources.Mavigogun (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overview Edits

[edit]

Removed Abbas Ibn Firnas' reference. The nature of the Firnas glider has not been established -whether the craft was weight-shift or three-axis controlled is pure confabulation; the only information on the crafts construction is that Firnas claimed to affect changes in altitude by flapping the wings -pure fancy, but, if credit is lent to his words, it wasn't even a glider!

Also edited over view to remove conjecture and opinion, improve diction, readability.Mavigogun (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Tech Development reference comment retained here

[edit]

The following comments were clipped from a discarded article entry and retained here for possible future use:

  • Modifications done to the flexwing in order to improve performance while remaining light and portable: Trailing luff (anti-dive) lines. 1974 - 1976: Increased nose angle. Deflexor cables mounted on the leading edges to stiffen and curve the wing for better flying performance and increased stability. 1977 - 1979: Multiple deflexors. 1978 - 1980: Enclosed keel and tip rods. 1980 - 1997: Preformed battens to shape wing camber. Floating cross bar. Cross bar enclosed within double surface (upper and lower wing skins). Variable wing geometry (VG). 1997 - to date: Topless (without king post).

The associated commentary and conclusion was unsubstantiated by reference.Mavigogun (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History vs. myth

[edit]

I've been reverted back on this removal of content. I recognize that the citation looks legit, but can people just look at the articles on the Celebi brothers and say with a straight face that Hezarfen merits a mention here? According to their articles, it doesn't even appear these guys are proven to have existed:

  1. Hezarfen Ahmet Çelebi
  2. Lagari Hasan Çelebi

You would think that someone achieving flight at the Sultan's court would mention more than a passing mention by a relative in a fantastical account of his own travels. I'm not sure why this is in any way a controversial removal of content. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a hang glider pilot I too find the claim far fetched. Note that in wikipedia we are not set to write "the truth" but report on what has been written in the bubject. If you feel strongly about it, help yourself. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to the existence of Lagari Hasan Çelebi, there is some evidence that he may have influenced later developments in rocketry- there being a tenuous link to work in Crimea, and, later, in Russia. I haven't retained any specific information; if you are interested, there is something there to look for. A point of clarification: Ahmet Celebi and Lagari Hasan Çelebi aren't related to Evliya Çelebi- the source of the stories.
If we scrutinize the stories of Cordoba, Spain and Malmesbury, England, they will likewise needs be removed as the source material is from third hand or from only one source. Again, there is evidence that 'flights' attributed to Abbas Ibn Firnas were -by earlier accounts- undertaken by two different parties, and that the 'glider' in questions -as described by the alleged pilot- was not a glider at all, but an ornithopter. All the anecdotal material should either be removed or a mythology/legend section created. What purpose does it serve here? Mavigogun (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time these events were happening, very few people had the privilege to master reading & writting, so I'd expect the sources to be scant, if the documents survived the pass of time. If you are willing to create a section regarding mythical flights, you will have to go back all the way to Daedalus, and everything in between, and I believe that that is already covered elsewhere. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the History of Hang Gliding; it seems the wrong place for mythology. I'm not sure of the relevance our expectations play when considering source material- are you suggesting that our standards should be less stringently adhered to dependent on the age of the source? Surely we revise our assessment of worth and temper breadth of claim to reflect only what can be substantiated, not presumed. Of course, your literacy reference could be regarding the 1970's....Mavigogun (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with your edits and reasons. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity Section: A Train Wreck

[edit]

The popularity section is a poor conglomeration of unsubstantiated conjecture and redundant history- it needs a heavy edit with an eye to encyclopedic content. To actually function as a summation of popularity, it might be reconstructed to included pilot population trends- including declining numbers, which would be topical/useful, with contrast to paragliding statistics.Mavigogun (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a mess, and once fixed, I see no relevance to "include paragliding statistics"; in what context you propose that? Cheers. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many- in print -have voiced a perceived connection between the rise of paragliding popularity and the decline in hanggliding. I'm not championing this position- just fielding directions the section could be structured to be relevant, useful.Mavigogun (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on a note to the effect of a decrease of HG popularity and an increase of PG. Will begin a cleanup, please feel free to chip in. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wills 02.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Wills 02.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


History-China: Rework

[edit]

Recent edits to the history section relating to China need to be edited for diction/syntax/readability, and content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavigogun (talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article: Kite speaks of "men lifted by kites" and "human flight", 5.th century BC. That is not controlled, steered hang-gliding, but it precedes in history of "human lifted by kite". --217.84.98.9 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of hang gliding. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of hang gliding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on History of hang gliding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_hang_gliding&oldid=1236216228"