See other Religion Articles
Title: Hang Gliding
Source:
United States Hang Gliding Association
URL Source: http://www.ushga.org/
Published: Jun 18, 2005
Author: Me
Post Date: 2005-06-18 22:02:12 by timetobuildaboat
Keywords: Gliding, Hang
Views: 218
Comments: 25
Have any of you guys done this or considered learning how? By God I have a burning desire to get up there and soar on the wind. I've looked at Ultra lights but not real keen on the constant drone of the motor. There is a school for hang gliding in Indiana and I have written to the instructer to acertain costs and scheduals, still waiting for his response.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
HELLOOOOOO.......helloooooo (me thinks there is an echo in hear) Oh well, a typical Saturday night for me....yawn :/
Well.. hang gliding? Looks like fun but I dunno ..the drone of the engine wouldnt bother me as much as hanging from the glider LOL
I did this back in the 1970's. We flew the old 45 degree rogallo kites with lots of billow in the sail. The kind that NASA had designed for re-entry vehicles. I had a Pliable Moose Rogallo made in Wichita Kansas. The newer 100 degree wings with battoned sails, the modern kites, were just coming out when I quit. I never flew one of those. These old kites didn't respond very well. They steered like a big boat, you had to wait to see the results of your steering inputs. In a way this made them safer and in a way it made them dangerous. The advantage was they pointed to the wind well. Mine would be stable through turbulance at the edge of a ridge that would have the newer kites pitching and rolling. The newer kites were more maneuverable however. I finally wiped out and broke my arm really badly. I was coming off a fifty foot high ridge in a high wind when something happened - I don't know what. All of a sudden I was two feet off the ground going about 35 mph. It was obvious one corner of my control bar was going to dig in. I put full control the other way and waited for the kite to come around. It didn't come around in time and the kite dug in and spun and flipped. All the tubes were broken and they had all already been sleaved from prior crashes. I needed new tubes but couldn't afford them. I never got around to putting the kite back together again. The sport was sort of like surfing without the women. It was more of a lifestyle than an activity. You would go set up on a hill and the conditions would die. Everyone would then pack up and go to another hill and the conditions would then die there too. Everyone would then tear down the kites and go to a third hill. Places like Torry Pines where the conditions were always good were controlled by locals who resented crowds and didn't like out of towners. I think a modern kite can do everything a sail plane can do except they are not as fast as sailplanes. Hence, they are not as good at catching thermals. Sailplanes are fast and have great glide ratios so they can make it to the next thermal after they have milked the first one. Kites can't do this so they usually just come down. You might also look at a para-foil. The last time I was at Torry Pines these were being used more than the kites. I think stability is sacrificed in the modern kites to give control. This makes them unforgiving of pilot error. Two of my friends went into weird dives in these sorts of kites and were both badly injured. Neither one knows exactly what happened. Both report that they simply couldn't pull out of a dive. They never knew why. Para-foils are very stable and seem to steer very well.
yep.. now I know why I thought might be a bad idea :P
Well that settles it for me. Thanks for the heads up!
I think parafoils are pretty safe. That's why they seem to be replacing the kites. Also you must realize that you will land hard a lot of the time. Clip a tree or a fence, etc. You won't be injured, but the kite will be trashed. You'll then spend a lot of time and money sleaving up the kite and getting it back together. That's why things like Mitchel Wings or Hang Tens never caught on - even though they flew better. One hard landing necessitated a hundred hours worth of work in the garage. At least the rogallos could be put back together pretty easily. Parafoils are pretty impervious to getting banged on the ground and probably need very little repair. Another advantage is they set up faster than a kite and are much easier to transport and store. You can soar them along a ridge just like a kite as well.
My friend and I were doing it in California back in the 1970s. This was our main gripe. There were NO women involved in the sport anywhere. NONE. It was just a bunch of really macho guys hanging out with each other and trying to outdo each other. You spend most of your time on some isolated ridge up in the National Forest.
Never done hang gliding but I have done cessna's and ultralights. Yes, ultralights can be noisy, but a good radio headset can block a lot of that out. They're also coming out with 4-stroke engines when before when I did it much noisier 2-strokes were the only thing available in small size. There's one ultralight called a mitchell wing that I'm kind of partial to. Never flown in one but they are tailless wings with an under carriage you sit and and on which a small engine is mounted. They boast a 16-1 glide ratio which is unheard of for an ultralight, and supposedly you can soar in them as a sailplane. The designer of the wing was the same guy who designed the flying wing bomber for the air force back in the 50's. That didn't take off, so to speak, perhaps because the tailless design is not given well to high speeds. Generally speaking, flying is safe, but it does require caution. Be smart about what you jump into and know the risks, and always leave yourself more than a couple options at all times. Never let that number drop to one.
The Mitchel Wings were out when I was doing the sport. But they weren't powered then. They were the ultimate flyers at the time. The problem, as I mentioned above, was that they were hard to repair. At the time they were made of plywood ribs and foam. They sort if exploded on impact. If you clipped a tree you had a big job putting things back together. My guess is these are now foam core and fiberglass. This is probably a little better.
The closest I've been to this experience was para-sailing in Mazatlan, way back in the day on our honeymoon...it was a hoot and a half.
Once I was standing by a roadside with my kite waiting for everyone else to get set up. Cars were stopping and a crowd gathered. The wind was really whipping and I found that even back from the edge of the ridge I could nose up the kite and it would pick me up about 10 feet. I could then hover there a few moments before going unstable. I would then nose the kite down and set down again. I did this several times while the crowed oood and ahhhd. The last time I did it the kite went over backwards. I then lost track of what happened. When things stopped moving I was laying under the smashed kite and everyone was screaming "Is he OK?". I was fine, the kite however was completely thrashed. I sleaved it back together and then had the other crash I mentioned above. I suspect something never got put together correctly and this caused the second crash.
Ahh.... didn't see that comment. Yes, they go back to glider only form. I've seen conversations debating whether a metal or wood wing is better. Some are saying wood wings are much easier to repair. I guess mainly because you can glue wood back together.
Bummer.
I will check it out. Thanks for the info.
If the wing is powered I would thing either would be OK. You're not nearly as likely to bang up a powered wing. The power allows you to decide when and where you will set it down and lets you go around on a botched approach. The unpowered kites were the ones that were always landing in the Chaparel or clipping fences and trees. These have to be easy to repair as there is a 100% probability that they will get banged up.
To heck with all of that "hang glider" nonsense. Try a L'il Buzzard instead. Way more stable, way more useful, way more comfortable. They use them in Canada all day long. I'm not sure what the U.S. laws are concerning them.
#2. To: timetobuildaboat (#0)
#3. To: timetobuildaboat (#0)
#4. To: crack monkey (#3)
I finally wiped out and broke my arm really badly.
#5. To: crack monkey (#3)
The sport was sort of like surfing without the women.
#6. To: Zipporah (#4)
#7. To: tom007 (#5)
Well that settles it for me. Thanks for the heads up!
#8. To: timetobuildaboat (#0)
#9. To: Neil McIver (#8)
There's one ultralight called a mitchell wing that I'm kind of partial to.
#10. To: timetobuildaboat (#0)
#11. To: Neil McIver (#8)
#12. To: crack monkey (#9)
The problem, as I mentioned above, was that they were hard to repair. At the time they were made of plywood ribs and foam.
#13. To: crack monkey (#11)
When things stopped moving I was laying under the smashed kite and everyone was screaming "Is he OK?". I was fine, the kite however was completely thrashed. I sleaved it back together and then had the other crash I mentioned above. I suspect something never got put together correctly and this caused the second crash.
#14. To: Neil McIver, All (#8)
There's one ultralight called a mitchell wing that I'm kind of partial to. Never flown in one but they are tailless wings with an under carriage you sit and and on which a small engine is mounted. They boast a 16-1 glide ratio which is unheard of for an ultralight, and supposedly you can soar in them as a sailplane.
#15. To: Neil McIver (#12)
I've seen conversations debating whether a metal or wood wing is better. Some are saying wood wings are much easier to repair. I guess mainly because you can glue wood back together.
#16. To: crack monkey (#15)
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#17. To: Elliott Jackalope, crack monkey (#16)
US laws (fed regs, actually) until very recently did not recognize ultralights as regulatable aircraft. An ultralight was defined as a gizmo weighing no more that 254 pounds, a stall speed of not more than X (?) knots, 5 gallon max fuel capacity and no passengers, along with a number of other limitations. A federal license was not required to fly an ultralight. It was legal by them to just hop in one without any training and go. (Legal, but not smart). Things just changed over to some kid of "sport aircraft" designation which, without much surprise, requires one to have a state issue driver license or other government ID as part of the qualifications. I don't know the details though. But the craft itself would be "legal" in its present form, albeit by means of falling into either sport plane or experimental categories. As you both probably know, the last 20 years has seen a real reinventing of home built aircraft whereas Cessna's and Pipers dominated the small plane industry in the 50's and 60's.
I'm not sure what the U.S. laws are concerning them.
#18. To: Elliott Jackalope (#16)
Call me a sissy--call me paranoid--but that Lil' Buzzard looks like a Lil' Deathtrap.
If you love America, you'll hate Israel.
#19. To: Elliott Jackalope (#16)
I'm thinking of building something like that when I retire. I'm not sure what. It's something I've wanted to do all my life. Rutan's Veri-Eze is another good one. I have a friend who built Rutan's other small plane, the single seater with the two little wheels on the cannard. Can't remember what you call it. He cut it out of foam with a hot wire and some templates. Glued it together and fiberglassed it. Took him a couple of years. The kit maker is free from liability if you build 51% - I think this is the figure. Hence, these kits are designed so the last 51% is easy. The problem is that once you're finished the aircraft is an experimental aircraft. This really limits what you can do with it. It takes years to get it out of this category if you can do it at all. I looked at the brochures for a Pitts Special. This looks doable. You might finish it in five years if you had a lot of time to work on it. It has welded fusalage and wing frames, but the rest is wood and fabric. Here you would have a much more enjoyable aircraft. There is even a two seater version. The engine seems to cost around $30K however - at a minimum - and this is a choking point.
I'm not sure what the U.S. laws are concerning them.
#20. To: Elliott Jackalope, wbales (#16)
nuh uh...i'm staying grounded. ;)
#21. To: christine (#20)
Had God intended lawn mowers to fly, he would have given them wings.
nuh uh...i'm staying grounded. ;)
If you love America, you'll hate Israel.
#22. To: crack monkey (#19)
Don't know about liability, but I believe that's the magic percentage for experimental designation, at least. And I think a federally certified guru has to inspect your construction at various points during build to give it the experimental signoff as well.
The kit maker is free from liability if you build 51%
#23. To: Dakmar (#0)
Got any ideas? Can you suggest any ways to fly?
Yez, Baaz!
#24. To: Neil McIver (#22)
It's liability. I don't know exactly how the cases have evolved, but that is the reason there are no cheap and ready to fly light planes sold in the US. Only kits. I'm not certain, but I don't even think the small Cessnas and such are being made anymore. People have been lobbying for an exemption for light, sport aircraft but it isn't here yet. There are catalogs with the available kits and plans. You can build some pretty sophisticated small planes. There are usually communities to help you. The advantage of the ultralights is that they go together quickly. The disadvantage is that they are slow and underpowered and not really good for cross country travel. I think if you built an ultralight you'd buzz the field a few times and then realize you needed a real airplane. I think Rutan's Veri-eze is the best compromise between time of contstruction and performance. The two seater Long-eze variant might be best. Here you could have a fully instrumented airplane that could travel around 125 - 150 mph.
Don't know about liability
#25. To: crack monkey (#24)
I think they did stop building them in the 70's when lawsuits were getting popular, but that they resumed making them when Clinton signed something into law limiting manufacturer liability. There are quite a few kits on the market for planes that fly substantially faster and on substantially less fuel than the cessna's do with their continental engines. I toyed with the idea of getting one about 10 years ago and got a few video's and info kits. A Canadian company made a Pelican aircraft I remember as being a good looking one. Two seater highwing tricycle gear, composite construction. All you need is 25-30K and a year or three. Rutan has of course made some good ones. One of them has a 2000 mile range. That might be the EZ. Unfortunately John Denver's crash in one raised a bit of a safety question.
I'm not certain, but I don't even think the small Cessnas and such are being made anymore.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest