neat-link find
contributed by lifting roving reporter Neil Larson
Discuss and extend
history of Easy Riser lore:
* Easy Riser - was a formidable "improved copy" of the
Kiceniuk - Icarus I and II design tailless bi-plane.
Supplying the high performance hang glider market of the
mid-Seventies, Easy Riser was a unique marketing success.
Redesigned from its contemporary Icarus II, with many
advancements in construction and design to give greater stability,
handling, and allowance for faster set-up time.
The Easy Riser took advantage of the rapid
advancements in hang glider construction. The upper wing was
substantially wider than the lower. This airship gained popularity
with a high impact advertising campaign in hang glider magazines
of the day. The cigarette paper company Easy Wider ,
launched an ad campaign in conjunction with Easy Riser, and
also sponsored a fleet of these hang gliders to be entered in
several hang glider competitions in the late 70's.
~~ contributed by Neil Larson
"The "Hairy Dude #2" is the infamous Jack Schroeder, the Quicksilver
competition pilot who later broke his back on an Icarus 5 [sic, Icarus
V] and sued the State of California for allowing him to fly at Pt.
Fermin state beach - with serious repercussions for California's hang
glider pilots." Rickmas
Bob takes the latest Sensor 610F5, with its New
Air Foil, out for a test run on a beautiful spring day in the mountains
behind Santa Barbara. Working on the Leading Edge Cant, and other little
specific modifications to the sail design, that has made this
Hangglider, one of the most efficient king posted gliders in the world.
Also Bob has a chance to meet up with some pilots at Torrey Pines for
the Annual Demo Days. John Heiney , Chris Bolfing, and many others
showed up to enjoy the fruits of Bob's Labor.
Aug 12, 2011 - A
paragliding flight instructor, flying tandem with a cameraman, has
outraged the German tourist industry
by causing the most expensive rescue operation in the history of
free-flight and potentially causing millions of dollars of damage to
one of Germany's most prized gondola lifts. Ignoring the regulation
prohibiting flying near the gondola cable to the
world famous castle of Crown Prince Ludwig II, Castle Neuschwanstein,
the pilot illegally approached a gondola filled
with 20 tourists, including five children, and was driven into it at
80 meters altitude by what he claimed was "a freak gust of wind." The
cameraman was injured. The paraglider's sail became entangled in the cable
rollers, causing them to seize and slide on the cable. The cable lift
operators, fearing that the seized wheels might have damaged the cable,
endangering perhaps one hundred people along the length of the lift,
immediately shut it down. As thousands watched from the valley, two
hundred and fifty rescue workers and three helicopters arrived to attempt
the dangerous rescues but were delayed until dawn by strong winds and
rain. One hundred and thirty two tourists were brought down from the
summit, some by helicopter. The twenty tourists in the damaged gondola and
thirty in a nearby gondola were trapped for eighteen hours. Franz Bucher,
CEO of Tegelbergbahn in Schwangau, is
quoted as saying "I'm mad as hell!" He accuses the "very experienced"
paraglider pilot of "gross negligence." He claims there was no "gust of
wind" responsible for the accident, but that the pilot had intentionally
crossed the cables for the purpose of filming, an action that incurs
criminal responsibility. He is working with the authorities to identify "a
circle of people" involved in the illegal filming attempt. He said the
gondola lift, one of Germany's top tourist attractions, would have to be
shut down for several days because experts would have to remove the "ball
of fabric" from the trolley and carefully inspect the cable for damage. If
damage is found, he added, it would take months to replace the entire
multi-million dollar cable. Because this incident proves beyond doubt that
paraglider pilots cannot police themselves, and because the risk of huge
losses to third parties has now been demonstrated to be real, there is a
substantial possibility that paragliding will be banned at this famous
free-flight venue just as it recently was at Roquebrune-Cap-Martin on the
French Riviera. Hang gliding activities are always at risk of being lumped
in with the irresponsible behavior of paraglider pilots and the myriad
uncontrollability issues stemming from their frameless wings, but the
astronomical costs involved in this incident could conceivably drive the
universally-required third-party liability insurance premium far beyond
the reach of all free-flight participants.
VIDEO
Robart's glider at Amiens (1904)
M. HENRI ROBART
Sometimes name misspelled to Robert.
See here some
1908
evolved work: in that source: "In February 1901 he
obtained lift measured at 8 kg with 2 propellers each 2.5 m in diameter
and driven by a 100 kg electric motor. At this same time he began work
on gliders, which he tested at Berck"
Solirene glider (1904) [reverse accent for first e;
Solirène]
Lavezzari's glider at Berck in 1904. [ Sort the apparently two
distinct images [ ] ]
Who has been archives for what occurred at Berck in 1904 ?
"Alfred Bazin worked in Marseille from 1904-1907. He built a series
of gliders with the wings in the shapes of birds; and hanging
underneath, he tested them from local hills and in the Camargue."
http://flyingmachines.ru/Site2/Crafts/Craft29184.htm
I received word this morning that my granite bench HG history marker
is done and in place, on the hillside in Pacific View
Memorial Park. I'll get over there early next week and get some photos to
e-mail. It turns out that it has been there for a couple of weeks and they
failed to let me know. I sent an e-mail yesterday, complaining that after
all the money I spent I expected some action on this. I got an apology for
not letting me know it is already in place and; "looks good". I'm anxious
to see it.
In addition to a close up, to show the inscription, I'll get a shot from
higher on the hill and we can compare it to the video. I personally think
it is very close to a spot on the hillside where Richard Miller flew over,
on the flight where he flew over Taras and others.
Bill, you were going to send me a clip of your copy of the 1971 video so I
can take it out there on my computer and view it on site. That would help
a lot to figure out the alignment.
Busables for local gliding fun? Join the movement.
Tell your story. Up and down exercise!
Your HG packs with you on city and regional
buses as you go to parks, slopes, and special launches for some exercise
and flying fun.
Be part of the coming
eHG movement where
the airframe itself is a storage-of-electricity component with recharge
from sun, wind, grid-supplied kitricity, excess lift, pilot motions, and pilot exercise.
There will be starkly less use of cars, trucks, and
gasoline-to-launch-point activity. And millions of launch points will
open.
What will you bring to this party flow?
Accomplished:
Ken writes:
Ken de Russy's Hang Gliding Museum
Event - A Conversation With John Dickenson and Barry Palmer - To Be
Streamed Live!
The
historic meeting between two towering hang gliding pioneers will take
place Saturday 27 August 2011 beginning at 2:00PM Pacific and will run 2
to 3 hours. Barry Palmer and John Dickenson will tell of their
pioneering work that launched the modern sport of hang gliding. The
presentation will be followed by questions and answers after which you
will have the opportunity to speak and socialize with these two great
innovators.
This event will be videotaped and simultaneously Streamed live. To view
the event go to Ustream.tv and enter Sharpe1 in the search window. The
2:00PM Pacific time frame is during waking hours for much of the world
If you wish to Skype in a question please try to request to be added to
my Skype contact list by 8:00PM Pacific Friday 26 August if you can to
give me time to add your name to my Skype list. My Skype name is
ken.de.russy
Your
Skype video will be projected on a large screen viewable by our speakers
and those in attendance.
You may
also e-mail a question toweflyuniv@aol.com.
I will do my best to read all questions and select the best ones to
present to Barry and John.
From Interstate 5 in Burlington Washington
take exit
230 and travel west on Highway 20 11 miles and turn south toward Whidbey
Island. After .5 miles turn left on Gibralter Road. Go 2.5 miles and turn
right on Gibralter Drive. Make you first right onto Nebraska and go to the
end. Turn left on Carolina. The third structure on the left from the
corner of Nebraska and Carolina is the Hang Gliding Museum. Parking in
this semi rural neighborhood should be done with consideration. Please
avoid driveways and dangerous shoulder parking. Nebraska street is fairly
wide and is very close to the venue.
Please repost this notice for maximum
exposure.
Ken de Russy
USHGA Life/Charter Member #5114
Hang Gliding Museum Collector Guy
Anacortes, WA
360 293 8621
Skype Me ken.de.russy
Discussion points
:
(your comments are welcome)
Great job, Ken, and all visitors!
What was said has many interesting points.
What was not said is probably significant also.
JD confirmed that he had the Bensen gyro-copter plans and Bensen
kited-control flying experience before he entered the
Rogallo-Wing-based kite. What was not said in his practiced
report was the recognition that Bensen had in early 1950s
demonstrated and world-published pilot-seated-penduluming with TCF
in front of pilot for weight-shift control of kite or same in
gliding mode (same function as the the 1908 Breslau hang glider that
held what is common in hang gliders today. Important omission!
JD admitted Rogallo Wing was part of his foundations in pics, but he
stuck with the canopy-pix-only story, despite the life-long
wish to fly like a bird and already Ryan and NASA world-publishing
for framed bi-conical Rogallo-promoted kite-glider wings; the flow
of Bensen literature came from where-???--such was not mentioned;
such flows and interest apparently missed the
already-present-in-Australia stiffened NASA-report-based wings of
Mike Burns, JD meeting the Burns facts only later, JD said.
Finally, JD did not echo the loud GH "invention" pseudo-title of the
construction; maybe finally the GH-JD camp is recognizing that the
mechanics were globally not inventible at such late date as 1963, as
such was already know, in use, demonstrated, flown, versioned,
modified, photographed, etc. by others far before JD.
JD had a PG favoring that gave wince to many. Apparently he did
not appreciate the PDMC.
JD had his arms hard crossed for almost all of the couple of
hours. Hmmm? I would be in some pain seeing all the BHP
camp foot-launch hang glider flying being shown during a large part
of the streaming discussion.
BHP confirmed his first sessions of design had TCF with cables
in design view via sketches; he already had ouch cable experiences
and opted to go without TCF with cables; he wanted quicker
construction where he could adjust body position to get quickly to
"sweet spot" for control. And control he and friends did
as ample video was showing. Helmets were absent. Some
fun landings were interesting; quick step aways after stand-up
landings.
Ken seemed to not recognize a full 100 years worth of hang
gliding design; a two-second mention of Jan Lavezzari's "bi-conical"
with a dismissing tone was disappointing. Hundreds of hang gliders
of the first decade of the 1900s gave the world much hang glider
foundations, including our TCF cable-stayed and wings that had
washout, etc., and also the flexible wing bi-conicals.
A miss was the non-mention of the NASA Paresev program with
eight top pilots doing kited flying and released gliding in
stiffened bi-conical "Rogallo"-promoted-based wings much prior to
the Burns and JD efforts. Ryan Aeronautical world-blanketed images
were not mentioned.
BHP emphasized September 1961, not just December 1961, had real
off-ground mini flights; two years solid before JD's Rod Fuller
kited at Grafton; JD crashed and got dragged in the first day where
Rod flew; only boat-towed kited launching. Then release gliding
began to develop. No one asked why and how the later
1964 October drawings had the nomenclature much earlier found nearly
identical to some NASA drawings; such is cause for doubt of some of
the story.
Missing was mention of William Beeson's 1887 patent which
exhibited the keys to the mechanical arts involved.
Ken mentions that there was "at least two" flows of influence
for the explosion of hang gliding in the 70s. However, it has been
in Ken's view for years that at least ten flows of significant
influence flowed to effect the expansion of hundred-year-old hang
gliding activity. The flow from the works of Mr. Worth was not
mentioned.
GH is expert on minutia of JD along with carrying gross
over-claim for JD; his transnational presence on back screen in the
show was mostly with self-comments, missing time to bring out JD
facts.
Not-mentioned was the fact that not a shred or nuance of the
JD-BB-BM strand was present in the great Otto Meet of Newport Beach
on May 23, 2011, that Neil Larson has brought in mind in the last
several years for all. Rather advanced washout in Miller's
flying wing from Horton imbibe, monoplane HG from 60 years of
monoplane gliders, BHP influence, Chanute influence, NASA influence,
etc. was present; zero from the Aussie ski kites. The showmen
did their part, but the not-them forces were hugely key; synergy
began to occur, but the boat people certainly did not bring on the
huge flow that came with non-Aussie influential flows.
The Otto Meet brought in the flows of robust gliding history.
Hi Joe,
I concur with your points below. In particular the " blindness" of
JD to the stiffened Rogallo or Ryan wing is something GH has brought
about to denigrate Rogallo/NASA. The letter from JD to FR clearly
states that he saw a picture of the Ryan aircraft before building
his own wing. The fact that the Burns wing was so similar to the JD
wing, at the same time and place, would lead to the conclusion that
both were influenced by the same information source. It is very
strange that Burns has not made any comment on the whole issue.
There is no love lost between JD and Burns as JD claims
Aerostructures never paid him for all the "Dickenson Wings"
that they produced. Why does Burns not put the record straight?
The JD/BHP meeting was set up by Ken to enable the JD camp to deal
with prior claims of BHP without loosing too much from their own
claims. Very little else came out of the meeting from an historic
standpoint.
I will view it again to see if there is anything I missed as it was
late when it first was shown.
Tony
From: Joe Faust <Editor@UpperWindpower.com>
To: Tony Prentice
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2011 0:28:54
Subject: Re: Ustream of JD, BHP, Peter Brock, and others
Spelling-of-name correction, Tony: William Beeson patent in 1887. (he had several aviation
patents).
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Joe Faust
<Editor@upperwindpower.com> wrote:
Hi Tony,
I was able to view up to the big pause; later I will aim to finish
the video viewing.
There are some key points for attention by those interested, in
time. Below is rough first blush; later I will more carefully get
the text of what was said.
1. At this late date, Ken seems still pointedly to discount a
hundred years of hang gliding history as though it did not exist,
but for a spot liftoff of Jan L. While doing such, he pointedly
lauds GH as the most knowledgeable hang gliding historian. [[It
should have been qualified to point to a deep focus on one person,
not the whole of hang gliding history. GH has yet to even recognize
a huge flow of hang gliding history as he must to try to support
pseudo claims for just one individual. ]]
2. BHP pointedly "drew" and chose not to build, the arrangement of
control found in today's hang gliders; such drawing was done before
he build his Rogallo.
3. BHP built monoplane HG and participated in a Chanute HG before
his Rogallos.
4. Ken is with "bi-conical" overdrive. Flexible cylindricals of NASA
seems beyond Ken's view.
5. Paresev did not get mentioned.
6. The deep Mike Burns prior Australian effort got one
sentence with an effort to focus on "control stick", yet the whole
of Burns effort before JD started-- fully knew TCF arrangement.
7. JD confirmed that his Bensen gyro beach kiting was prior to his
builds of the flexible-sailed kite. Such would firm that the Bensen
airframe control of pendulumed pilot was in JD's mind and bones
prior to his entering the Rogallo kite build. Bensen had on
free-flight (off tow) the airframed frontal TCF with pendulum pilot
in early 1950s. No mention of the Breslau 1908 mechanical
achievement of the TCF with hung pilot. Nor the Spratt. Or 1887
patents of William Beeson. Wenham and Pilcher were absent, etc.
8. JD practiced his reply. He "imagined" stiffening the canopy he
saw pics of (Rogallo wing) ... yet stiffening had been broadcasted
around the world ...and even present in Australia over the ski
waters. For a guy who wanted to fly like a bird since age 5 from
seeing intimately the seagulls, to see the Rogallo wing limp canopy
pics, and not to have seen what was ...or talked over ... that which
alreadywas in his nation and in international views of papers where
Bensen matters would be....:::>> Still hard to believe his blindness
to the stiffened Rogallo or Ryan wing; his nomenclature, drawings,
and production had astronomical coincidence with that which was in
NASA reports; his countryman Burns priorly had the reports.
9. Peter Brock did not recognize that Miller at Otto Meet had
deliberate washout. To Brock, Roy Haggard was "first" for such. Of
course, at least Jose Weiss and others very early knew flying-wing
washout. Hey, where is a Horton when you need one?
10. BHP confirmed that September held some actual flying practice.
1961.
11. BHP confirmed some seat flying.
12. The heavy amount of time that JD had his arms fully crossed
might be explored by a profiler. I am not expert; but recently I
have heard on a documentary that such posture greatly reduces pain
that one is challenged with. It appeared to me that it was painful
for JD to see so much foot-launch flying by the BHP camp.
13. Lack of helmets ...
14. Ken very much interrupted JD. Wanted: more JD, less Ken.
15.
... later, after some future fuller listening to the stream.
Lift,
Joe
? MORE COMMENT IS WELCOME..
Weak-link futurisms?
_____________________
[ ] ?: Smart weak links? Pilot would be given realtime status report
of the precise remaining strength of the weak link installed. The
full shock history of a particular weak link would be recorded and
computed in the consideration.
[ ] ?: No-knot weak links that are with the above smarts.
[ ] ?: Dial-a-weak-link's-strength
weak links that have the above two characteristics.
[ ] ?: Tracked standardized manufacture of weak links having the
above three characteristics.
Shocks of small-to-large size begin changes in any given particular
weak link.
What is the present condition of safety critical lines? How will the
condition be reported? How will the system react to the given data?
Etc.
Ban reprieve at Oz Report hang gliding forum?
Mon, Aug 29 2011, 4:05:14 pm
Some posters are banned from Oz Report.
===========
Is there a path for return of some of them?
What will it take to bring back some of our fellows?
Who has been banned?
Each case might have a Davis-return procedure.
Forgiveness? Conduct restriction? Posting style? Frequency?
I, for one, miss the gifts of some of the posters that have been banned.
How about you? What do you want? I wince at "good riddance" expressions,
as I hope for value from each interested person, despite challenges in
conduct.
Deep abusers of some policy points simply extract themselves firmly. But
what
about the fuzzy edge of banning? Has enough time passed where some posters
can be given another entry?
~JpF
Posted in Oz Report. Posted reference
note in US Hawks
Been following the thread and don't recall if the following question has
been faced: Has the tow line torque been studied and
measured for hang glider towing operations? The line untensed as
base; then upon tensing, the line develops some torque; without swivel the
torque is there.
What significance would line torque be at
release-- intentional or not, at weak link break? Bille made a
quick comment to one of mine in the thread surrounding the occasion of
wrap of weak link.
Listening. I do not have answers or links on the above questions.
JoeF OP-0
Thanks for your time and attention on the questions, Jim. Appreciated.
I will do some due diligence to see if anyone has faced the questions.
Maybe line torque in various towing scenes, line torque with connected
mixed lines,
etc. has been carefully studied; some of what I might find might bring on
matter
that could help set a higher bar. The wrap at weak-link break and the
various
release-recoil reports bother me; and I suspect line torque in mixed-line
assemblies
may be part of what might be in any design toward a higher bar for HG
towing. I will bring items
forward, if found; maybe with something …you or others could also move
toward
a higher bar. The change of conditions of lines used (tow line, weak-link,
bridle)
over time and use and storage might affect immediate line torque and
performance.
I suspect releasing and weak-link breaking experiments could be done to a
significant extent without risking human life. I have a tall pecan tree in
my rear yard
and some water bags; perhaps shock and recoil of mixed lines could be done
with
these… to complement what others may have found.
Knowing the immediate weak link's remaining integrity and strength would
be neat.
Smart weak-link system futurism, as earlier post in this thread noted, is
of interest. No-knot weak linksinterests
me; I'd like to see the systems not have to deal with
the knot variations and the shock history at the knot.
Dialing a weak-link's precise G rating for the immediate tow attracts my
attention.
Specifying the lines used in a set of experiments would be baseline, as
each
line will have its line-torque character.
Thanks Jim, for bringing up the
term "higher bar" to this old
high jumper.
Reminds me of the tens of thousands of times I aimed to clear higher bars.
And
this just reminded me of Quicksilver HG designer Bob Lovejoy;
we high jumped
against one another in high school and then later I andmy
wife flewhis first
Quicksilver.
After asking the question, participants
may bring in discussion points about the questions. So far:
"torsional interaction problems that can occur when ropes of
different types are joined together" Source.
torsional properties of ropes
swivels
Do we want another part like a swivel in the HG tow systems? Could
the drive for simplicity have us be too simple?
Could we reach for near zero torque in the line, so the there is
almost no line torque upon weak-leak breaking?
How many ways are on the thinking table to obtain no-knot weak
links at specified breaking strengths?
How might we have a smart weak link that reports its real time
remaining strength?
Is there a way to record the shocks that a weak link has in its
history?
What is a "torque-balanced fibre rope"
Are braided lines with line torque upon tensing without swiveled
torque escapement?
Upon connecting two dissimilar lines, what are the torque dynamics
at the connection? What happens to the line ends at breaking when
residual line torque exists?
CAUTION:
Break Strength:The breaking
strength of a rope is the load at which a new rope will break when
tested under laboratory conditions. Break strength should not be
mistaken for safe working load.
Safe Working Load:
Because of the wide range of rope use, rope condition and the
degree of risk of life or property, it is not possible to make a blanket
recommendation for safe working load. It is ultimately dependent on the
rope user to determine what percentage of break strength is their own
safe working load.
Wear:
Ropes wear out with use; the more severe the usage, the greater the
wear. It is often not possible to detect wear on a rope by visible signs
alone. Therefore, it is recommended that the rope user determine a
retirement criteria for ropes in their application. Source is
http://www.phillystran.com/186.htm
Degradation of lines used: bridle, tow line, weak link
Wear from ground drag
Inadvertent cuts
UV quantity
Storage-method effects
Shocks
Creep
Chemical environment of the line? Composition of the chemicals
affecting the line during operations and during storage? Has the
material for weak link been well handled since its manufacture?
?
Why would a tow occur when a full inspection of the lines was not
made just prior to one's tow? Do we really know that the assembly is
adequate for OUR tow up?
Snapback and recoil of tow line at release, at weak link breaking,
and at bridle released?
See the note on weak-link futurisms above in this issue of Lift.
Open topic for all interested.
An intention is to put up on the table a comprehensive exploration of
specified optionsin
preparation for feasibility experiments.
I have not any "the answer" and will explore and work in parallel with
others. What could occur here in Oz Report is a strong tool towardno-knot
weak links(no-knot
safety links). The hope is getting a weak link option set that improves
over theknotted
weak linkoption set.
Whether we find and prove out anything better than the extant knotted
choices or anything better than the no-knotsailplane
weak linksis
something to be known with hindsight. Meanwhile have fun brainstorming,
researching and posting, proposing, discussing, etc. Just maybe Jim's
"higher bar" in this detail might be reached. What have we? This thread
hopefully will remain open until a strong vision is reached about the
matter.
My personal start without having raked the above garden: Two rough-draft
brainstormed phrasing needing opening effort:
1. Two-grabs, two hidden capstans, guarded weak-link segment preventing
wrap. A quality well-specified base cord could be used. This is a broad
paintbrush phrasing without deep exploration yet; perhaps others will
open up my flash.
2. Endless-fiber cord ring specially manufactured from a high-quality
fiber set in urethane matrix. The fine fiber would ring many times to
form macro ring; the ringing would be unifed and softened by the
specified urethane molding. Macro appearance would be as a rubber band,
but imprinted or tagged with date of manufacture and name and strength
specification. Number of cycles of ringing would end in a specific
strength; more cycles to get a strong safety link. Perhaps color coding.
The run diameter (?term) of the torus could redundantly specify the
strength. Store in clean UV-protected moisture-free and dust-free bag
out of sun and heat. Use one per tow, then cut it up, so it cannot be
used again for any purpose. [[Microscopically this proposal actuallyas
two ends to the used fiber, but ringing cycles and matrix diminish the
"end" effects.]] Anyone is welcome to open up this flash. Thanks.
He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep, pain that cannot
forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our
will,
comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of the gods. -- Aeschylus
Aug 31, 2011, Chen Rong-hong, 53, Yilan, TAIWAN
Fell from harness at 30 m. Suffered a severe lung injury due to
broken ribs, chest injury, and heavy bleeding. Died in coma after 5 hours
in hospital. Rong-hong was Chairman of
Raydium Semiconductor Corp, an affiliate of flat panel maker
AU Optronics with the highest share value of any Taiwanese IC
provider. This accident stands as the most high-profile incident in the
history of paragliding.
http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?Type=aSOC&ID=201109010025
The PDMC is not relevant in this case. It was a harness accident. Same
as not hooking in in a hang glider. Or perhaps the buckle broke. A similar
accident could have occurred on any footlaunch aircraft or parachute. That
said, I don't understand why so many people are falling out of
paragliders.
![[IMAGE]](../../akitei1.gif)
World
Paragliding Association 
