.

.

Blog posts automatically found on the internet.

Moderator: mods

User avatar
By flyingthroughrock
#70004
Modern Hang Gliders.

The term “Modern Hang Glider” has been used to distinguish between the early hang gliding endeavours of Lilienthal, Lavezzari, Platz, Chanute, Palmer and many others, and the aircraft and sport that developed on the back of the invention of the Dickenson Wing.

The assertion that the today’s hang gliders are not Dickenson Wings is the result of the author’s failure to comprehend the whole story.

The author points to the Paresev airframe, but the airframe used on the Parasev is nothing like the airframe that John Dickenson invented. Lateen sails with frames are thousands of years old, Rogallo took the mast and spars out; http://www.johndickenson.net/videos/index.html and http://www.johndickenson.net/youtube/index.html . The geometry involved is pure mathematics, certainly not rocket science and not significant. John Dickenson, and Lavezzari, and NASA, and Ryan, and Palmer, all left them in. The thing is that the Airframe and control system that John Dickenson invented is far more significant than the membrane wing. The A-frame is simply part of the Airframe and to see it, as a different component is to fall for the old lie that John Dickenson added the Triangular-A-Frame to some mythical "Rogallo" wing. Such a wing did not exist.

Apart from Lavezzari’s wing, The closest would be the Kite design of W. D. Wanner: http://www.johndickenson.net/patents/wanner.html . Certainly the double conical sail wing is not defined in any Rogallo patent; http://www.johndickenson.net/patents/rogallo.html , NASA was indeed working on "Wanner Wings", rather than "Rogallo Wings" although it could be said that some of the wings they were working with were Lavezzari wings and others were Hybrid Rogallo-Lavezzari-Wanner Wings.

The current flock of delta-winged gliders are all the result of the evolution of Dickenson Wings. A Dickenson Wing is a class or Type of aircraft, gliders and powered. Certainly there have been many adaptations, but that is all, the incremental evolution of a design. And one may wonder why they are not even further ahead than they are in the design department. [I suspect that is because the very few people who have come up with successful design improvements were simply ripped off by the Rip-off and Duplicate philosophy that has been so prevalent in the sport. The real heroes seldom received their due reward or credit, this stifles development and innovation.]

This of course began with Bill Moyes and Bill Bennett each trying to steal the credit for John Dickenson's invention, and doing their level best to play down his role by saying that John added the control bar and control system to a “Rogallo” wing. Actually sometimes they admitted that but Moyes has even attempted to claim that credit at times; http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collect ... &site_id=3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The glider is fitted with the Bennett/Moyes harness and trapeze which has since become a standard item on delta wing gliders. This feature allows pilots, suspended in the harness, to control the glider by shifting their weight in relation to the trapeze. The harness is attached to a point on the underside of the wing so that when the pilot hangs directly below it, the centre of gravity and the centre of lift of the glider align keeping the glider in a straight flat glide. If the pilot moves from beneath this point, the centre of gravity will shift and the glider will bank, dive or climb accordingly. Very little muscular force is used when moving below the wing in this fashion.”
Note: Moyes provided this statement when this glider was donated to the museum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of those who have added to the design deserve credit, but you can take any of them away and the sport would exist, the one person who is essential is John Dickenson. He was inspired to simplify his bat wing design by the photo of the Para Wing from NASA, but no one else who saw those photos ever came up with this wing.

If you go to; http://www.aerialpursuits.com/hg/hgintro.htm you will find the following passage;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The basic hang glider as we know it today was pretty much invented by an Australian engineer, John Dickenson, in 1963 as an alternative to the unsafe flat kites used by water skiers and towed behind boats. Armed with only a magazine photo of a NASA Gemini recovery wing, he built a kite that had all the basic features of today’s wings – including the triangular control bar. The kite was taken up by a number of Australian water ski kite fliers, and before long, they had discovered its ability to glide as well as be a kite.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This statement, ironically on the website of the author of the above article, seems to contradict the claim that today’s gliders are not Dickenson Wings. The claim that others discover the wings ability to glide is an old lie oft repeated by Bill Moyes, you can watch and hear him make these claims at:
http://www.johndickenson.net/videos/index.html and http://www.johndickenson.net/youtube/index.html

You can also read the Moyes claim to have invented the wing at; http://www.moyes.com.au/articledetail.a ... t=Interest

The wing was being released into free gliding flight by 1964 and this is mentioned in the letter that John Dickenson sent to Francis Rogallo on the 24th November 1964: http://www.johndickenson.net/letters/john-rogallo.html

Please note that Rogallo quite pointedly says that the gliders that he was given over time were John’s Type, see the videos mentioned above. Francis Rogallo was quite clear about who invented the modern hang glider and whose wing he preferred to fly.

A careful study of the material on the site will support my position.

Dickenson Wings are an aircraft type, not just one design, they can be powered or used as gliders, they may have evolved, but they are still using all of the components that John Dickenson invented. I am not aware of any hang glider ever being manufactured that was based on the Paresev, don’t be fooled by the similarities, it’s the differences that make the Dickenson Wing so extraordinary, those differences revolutionized aviation, not just hang gliding, and it is a disgrace that John Dickenson as been treated the way he has been by the Hang Gliding Federation of Australia and the entire hang gliding community, although the bulk of the responsibility lies with Bill Bennett and Bill Moyes.
By microsoar
#70016
The term “Modern Hang Glider” has been used to distinguish between the early hang gliding endeavours of Lilienthal, Lavezzari, Platz, Chanute, Palmer and many others, and the aircraft and sport that developed on the back of the invention of the Dickenson Wing.
Then we agree to disagree, I guess. I contend that this is a very loose use indeed of the word "modern".

I fly a modern hang glider. I'm sure Felix Ruhl, the designer, would have some major objections to anyone calling it a Dickenson Wing, as would the inventers of the modern Swift, Phantom, Acheopterix(sp) and a whole slew of modern non-flex-wing hang gliders.

The site you reference has been updated to reflect the recently published material. The text on it was written before I had the extra information available on JohnDickenson.net, which was very helpful, thankyou.
#70190
I certainly don't mind disagreeing with you, as you are wrong it would seem to be an advantage. Did you even bother to study my reply?

Certainly your understanding of hang gliding history as demonstrated by your writings is wrong. I can see that history isn't your area.

As to who might agree with you, it doesn’t matter, as the truth is not a democratic process. We could call it contemporary, or post modern, but the fact is that the term “Modern Hang Glider” has been used for this purpose for over 30 years, even if you didn't know about it, as I said, hang gliding history isn't really your area. Arguing about the word "Modern" is really rather petty don’t you think? It makes it seem as if you have an agenda here.

I notice that on your website you claim to have designed a hang glider of your own, and this would appear to be the problem. (The afore mentioned agenda?) It seems that you are another would-be inventor of the modern hang glider. What part of your wing did you come up with? It can't be the airframe and control system as they are pure Dickenson Wing; it can't be the Sail Boat Wing as ‘Roach Tipped’ sails are as old as Chinese Junks. It wasn't the battens. So what did you design? It looks like a re-designed Dickenson Wing. You may have built it, did you ever think of crediting the people who designed the different parts of it.

I notice that you want to state that in the mid 70's a new type of hang glider was invented that were not a Dickenson Wing, what was it then? Steve Cohen, Bill Moyes, Bill Bennett and Francis Rogallo certainly don't agree with you on this, nor does the FAI. Mike Burns wouldn't agree with you. The Dickenson Wing is not limited to aircraft with ‘Conical Sails’ that have been incorrectly called ‘Standard Rogallos’. The Dickenson Wing is an ultralight wing controlled by swinging the passengers weight against the airframe. There are no controls. We also have hybrid control systems.

Most of the changes are simple mechanical devices designed to compensate for design limitations in regard to stability problems encountered in the process of increasing the aspect ratio. Others such as the double surface and the Bowsprit are simply solutions that deal with parasitic drag of the cross bar.

Things like curved tips are mechanical adaptations of known wing designs, just like truncated tips and roach tips. No one in hang gliding designed those things, though they did build them.

Even the Swift has come about as a result of the Dickenson Wing, it wouldn't have happened without the knowledge gained by the Dickenson Wing Industry.

If we look at say Aussie Gliders, you will have a hard job convincing a member of the public that a Litespeed is not the same ‘type’ of aircraft as a Litesport. You will also have a hard job convincing a member of the public that a Litesport is not the same type of aircraft as an XT 145; you will also have a hard job convincing a member of the public that a XT145 is not the same type of aircraft as an Airborne Fun. You will also then have a hard job convincing a member of the public that Airborne Fun is not the same type of aircraft as an SK1 from Ultralight Flight Systems, and you would then be hard pressed to say that the SK1 is not the same type of aircraft as the SL195. And then try to convince them that the SL195 isn’t just a big Mark IV Ski Wing. I could obviously have done this with just Moyes gliders or Wills Wing Gliders, and I could have included more gliders to show the more gradual evolution, but you should be able to see the point. You seem to argue that the SL 195 is a different type of aircraft to an SK1, Steve Cohen might find that hard to believe, as would Kevin Mitchell.

I therefore ask you to define the point where Dickenson Wings ceased to exist.

I note that on your website you are maintaining the lunacy that the Paresev had something to do with this, please, if studying this properly is beyond you, then stop writing about it and go back to whatever it is that you are good at.

Yes today’s Dickenson Wings out perform the early designs, and they are heavier. But there was no big breakthrough, no complete breakaway that separates them. You shall just have to acknowledge this or spend the rest of your life being wrong about this.

Your Atos, by the way, is pure Dickenson Wing, a blind man could tell you that. It’s had a few adaptations, but it does the same thing in the same way, it’s just too hard to turn it without help. If John Dickenson hadn’t invented the type, you wouldn’t have it would you? I’d like to see you or anyone look at the Paresev and then build a hang glider from it. I'm sure Felix Ruhl, It's builder did not start with a blank sheet of paper. By the way, I put spoilers on my Flight Sails Shark in 1981, you know that glider, it beat the Fledglings at the worlds in Japan. These things are not that important when looking at aircraft type.

Also, I posted my reply on your chichen blog? I note that it is not displayed, and that you have even removed the option of posting a reply, that rather shows the courage of your convictions in this debate. It is one thing to have a debate, it is quite another thing to publish material that seeks to cause moral harm to John Dickenson, which is what you seem to be intent on doing.

Cheers,
Graeme
Last edited by flyingthroughrock on Wed May 21, 2008 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By microsoar
#70212
I'll let my blog entry and web site stand as my "arguments", if that's what you want to call them. I call them opinions, and last time I checked, to hold them is my prerogative. I'm happy to spend my life being "wrong", as you put it. Thanks so much for letting me.

And indeed, I have stopped writing about it, since I'm sure the readers can make up their own minds on the issues at hand, can't you folks. :sleep:
User avatar
By flyingthroughrock
#70318
I don't mind you leaving your opinions up on your blog; they are an excellent example of the lies that have been told by Bill Moyes and his Hang Gliding Federation of Australia for all these years. The stuff you are posting is indicative of the resistance in the HGFA to properly give credit to John Dickenson, Rod Fuller, Pat Crowe and Mike Burns. I note that you have been a board member of the HGFA.
One must wonder at John Dickenson being given Life Membership of the HGFA in 1993 for “Continued Service to the Sport of Hang Gliding.” http://www.johndickenson.net/awards/index.html What on earth does that mean? Or had the HGFA already recognized Bill Moyes for inventing the Hang Glider? I would not put it past the HGFA to have done that. Why not recognize John properly? It is not as if Bill Moyes, also a board member, didn’t know the truth, he has even told it at times.
Your reluctance to offer any intellectual support for your views about Dickenson Wings is indicative of your lack of faith in your opinions.
Your failure to identify what part of the hang glider, the one that you "designed”, was actually designed by you and not simply ripped-off from others without due credit, is also an indication of the lack of substance of those claims to having "Designed" it. Why do you make them?
Regarding your failure to post my comments on your blog? Aren’t this, and your haste to remove the option for anyone to post a comment, indicative of a certain amount of intellectual cowardice?
Yes people can make up there own minds, and they are welcome to contact me for more information. Hopefully they won't simply pollute cyberspace with illogical and politically motivated rubbish like you have done. It's bad enough having Moyes promoting these lies.
The site www.johndickenson.net is still not finished by the way; more evidence will be posted in due course.
The sooner people, especially Australian hang glider pilots, realize that Bill Moyes has been lying about this the better, and then they will see that the HGFA has consistently supported these lies. It is my sincere hope that the HGFA will then be forced to acknowledge these matters and a change will occur so that the HGFA will at last fulfil it's moral duty to hang glider pilots around the world and respect and acknowledge the true inventor of this type of aircraft.
With regard to aerodynamic controls on Dickenson Wings, e.g. the ATOS, my F.S. Shark was not the first attempt at this, if you go to: http://www.johndickenson.net/gallery/historic.html you will see such an aircraft from the 1970’s.
I view the writing on your blog as just an attempt to support the dishonest position of the HGFA, as it has no intellectual merit.
Feigning boredom at the end of your last post is a pretty childish way of trying get out of explaining your actions, you could try being a little bit genuine here.
Sincerely,
Graeme Henderson
By microsoar
#70328
Let me just point out that on both my blog and web site I prominently provide links to JohnDickenson.net and suggest readers visit it to read Johns' story. On the blog, I also recommend they make up their own mind on the issue.

If your case is as strong as you believe, then this should be all you need to convince readers of its' veracity. I'm not going to waste my time arguing semantics with you.
User avatar
By flyingthroughrock
#70332
Just for the record. You began by arguing semantics in relation to the word modern. I have simply exposed your agenda, your errors, and your unwillingness to explain the many claims that you make.
Really, if you are unwilling to support your opinions with logic, fact, and evidence, then you would profit by keeping your opinions to yourself.
Sincerely,
Graeme Henderson
By microsoar
#70334
I have simply exposed your agenda, your errors, and your unwillingness to explain the many claims that you make.
So you believe. I'll let the readers, (if any have read this far) decide one way or the other.

Bye for now.
User avatar
By flyingthroughrock
#70343
Well the proof is all here. Your refusal to answer direct questions says more than words.
When you publish your "opinions" globally it's unreasonable to expect that they will not be challenged.
Isn't it then pure cowardice to avoid answering the questions that you are asked about the issues that you have raised in your published statements?
It calls into question your motives.
Your failure to answer my questions indicates that I am right and that you know full well that your position on all of the issues raised is unsupportable. You are simply seeking to cast aspertions and raise doubts about John Dickenson without either providing any evidence to support your opinions, or being prepared to stand up like a man to explain your motives.
This ceases to be about John Dickenson and starts to be about you, I am happy to let people make up their own mind.
User avatar
By flyingthroughrock
#70380
Please note that the article at the start of this series keeps getting updated so if some things don't make sense it can be explained by the way that it is posted.
So far this font of opinion has been showing a 1964 wing built by NASA and claiming that it was the design for John Dickenson's 1963 wing.
We now know that John Dickenson obviously invented the time machine as well.
The latest rumour on the issue that comes from another source is that we have fabricated the newspaper clippings from 1963. Someone is getting desperate.
John, I notice in your updated blog that you scoff at the speculation that you are doing this to promote Bill Moyes, that's fine, so that means that you are doing it for your own claim to fame which would make you just like Bill Moyes in this matter.
For someone who keeps claiming that you have stopped commenting on this, you seem to be doing a lot of commenting, but in a rather deceptive way.
We'll be placing this stuff on the www.johndickenson.net website to ensure that there is a record of this blog that can't be changed.
Sincerely,
Graeme
By microsoar
#70542
Just to set the record straight on a couple of things .

I have designed two hang gliders for my own use. I have never invented one, and my web site never claims I did. I freely admit that I included features invented by many others to design them. I have no agenda there and no claim to fame.

The site JohnDickinsen.net itself, as well as the NASA site says the Parasev was a 1962 design, not a 1964 one. Last time I looked at the calendar you didn't need a time machine to get from 62 to 63, just to live it.

I do not need to argue a case, I think it's being done for me. Well done!
User avatar
By flyingthroughrock
#70568
The photo you have up on your site was taken of a later version of the Paresev, a version they were experimenting with in 1964. Not all Paresevs are the same.

The 1962 Paresev that crashed due to inadequate control was a different machine but it too had a double conical / Lateen / Boat Sail with a rigid frame. As I have said, the differences are important however.

But, all that aside, Palmer had a rigid frame with a double Lateen / Conical sail in 1961, and in one report Rogallo mentions witnessing a flight of what was possibly a Fleep in 1961 that made him nervous, and even more importantly Lavezzari had such an aircraft by 1904.
And as I have said the Lateen sail with rigid frame are thousands of years old.
It is however obvious with little study to see that the frame, of which the A-frame is but a component, that John Dickenson invented is infinitely superior to Lavezzari's, Palmer's, and the Paresev and Fleep airframes. These sails were going up and down the Nile in the days of the Pharaohs, but no one, and that includes Leonardo da Vinci, Lilienthal, Lavezzari, Ryan, NASA, Palmer, or Rogallo, came up with a viable aircraft that utilized boat-sails for flight.

Like the Fleep and Palmers wings, the Paresev was no more than a slightly successful experiment. All three achieved flight, but none of them were good enough to be continued with. None kept flying. All three failed to produce viable aircraft. How many Fleeps or Paresevs have you seen flying? They tried to make an aircraft but didn’t and they were still trying when John Dickenson succeeded without any knowledge of their experiments. We know of Lavezzari, but we don’t know much as yet, but it is entirely possible that many attempts have been made to use boat sails for flight, by many people for thousands of years. It is also possible to see that if they had the plans that John Dickenson sent to Francis Rogallo in 1964, anybody could have built a viable aircraft at any time for at least the last 5 thousand years. The thing is, that until the invention of the Dickenson Wing, nothing came of those experiments. It is ingenuous to say that the Paresev played a role because it did not. John Dickenson did not add a triangular control bar to that, or any other wing, just because a lie has been told many thousands of times does not stop it from being a lie.

It is also true that years after John Dickenson succeeded, others who new nothing of his work, Prentice and Miller come to mind, were trying to build hang gliders based of NASA photos and failing. Ken de Russy refers to these many failures as the bamboo bombers and there were quite a few of them. If John Dickenson had not come up with his airframe it is unlikely that anyone else would have. One only has to look at all the failed attempts that were still happening into the 1970’s to see that we would be at least 10 years behind where we are now if someone else had hit upon the design that is the key, even in 1973. People have speculated that the invention of the Dickenson Wing was inevitable and that is rubbish. A careful study of all of the process that influenced its discovery will reveal that it was a truly serendipitous series of events that led John Dickenson to the magic formula. Had John known of the Paresev or Palmer, it would have changed the thought process and influenced him into doing things differently. If he had known about Palmer he would have copied him, he wasn’t trying to invent anything great at the time; John Dickenson accidentally invented the modern hang glider when he wasn’t trying. The irony is that all the people who were trying failed. {With the exception of Jensen of course.}

Studying this process has shown me how fortunate we are that things went as they did, it was a close thing and the whole invention process was extremely fragile. Change any number of influences and it wouldn’t have worked. The modern hang glider owes nothing to the Paresev, the Fleep, or Barry Hill Palmer’s; it does however owe a large part of its construction design to the Television Arial.

John Dickenson's airframe is the template that has been used for over 90% of all hang gliders ever built, even the Atos is based upon it, as a quick look will show.

The Paresev Airframe is a bit like the Triangular Wheel, different but of no use on your car.

John Dickenson's airframe is a complete unit.

I know that we used to separate the A-frame during transport, but that would only fool someone who wanted to be fooled.

So what part of your hang gliders was your design, or was it just the way you assembled the copied components that makes it your design, or the colour of the sail. The way you present it on your web site makes it sound much more impressive that it really is, as you fail to acknowledge those whose work you have copied. John Dickenson never behaved like that, he always acknowledged Rogallo, and always acknowledged that Rod Fuller was the first pilot. You seem reluctant to acknowledge that you have used John Dickenson's invention in your "DESIGN".

John Dickenson has never claimed the credit for the boat sail he used. He always credited Rogallo, although he initially was led to believe it was Ryan Aircraft, and he, like so many people, failed to realize that a double Lateen / Conical sail was not a Rogallo design. But certainly he never claimed to have invented that component and he done his best to give credit where it was due. But the rest of it is his; we aim to have the plans for both the Aerostructures Ski Wing and the Skiplane available soon, so people will be able to see how different those two aircraft are.

If you read the Rogallo - Dickenson letters you will see that Rogallo had no problem seeing the difference between John's aircraft and the others, Ryan's, NASA's, Purcell’s and Palmers, neither Dickenson or Rogallo were aware of the Skiplane at that time. As you quoted on your website Bill Moyes stated that the aircraft we fly today were invented by John Dickenson. Bill Bennett said that if Rogallo invented the wheel then John Dickenson invented the car. Once again we can now see that Rogallo didn't invent the wheel, just altered it and was a conduit for it being brought to John Dickenson's attention.

I am trying to work out why you are pushing the lies that you are? You must have a motive; no one makes himself or herself look like an idiot in public without some reason. Why are you doing this to yourself? You have obviously not studied the subject and yet you make bold and baseless statements in public.
User avatar
By flyingthroughrock
#70569
I see that you have placed the following comment on you blog page:

Note: This post is closed for comments. If you want to see the (rather long) opposing responses to it, visit the hanggliding.org forum

Of course that wasn't there when I posted my original reply, which you refused to post and which prompted you to remove the option to post a comment. That may be cunning but it ain't courage.
By microsoar
#70575
No hidden agenda, no advantage to be gained, no conspiracy, no collusion with other so-called conspirators. Just an individual blogger writing a single opinion piece on his personal interpretation of a phrase and what it implies, (and linking to the opposing point of view so you can make up your own mind). No more, no less.

Thank you, readers, for visiting the rest of my blog after reading through this lot and generating so much blog traffic. Thanks also for all the many visits you've made to fatcyclist.com via the blog in the last day or so to read about the sad plight of the Fat Cyclist's wife Susan. I hope some of you will support Elden's fund raising activities on her behalf. I think there are still "WIN" shirts available.
User avatar
By flyingthroughrock
#70576
Thank you for drawing attention to the www.johndickenson.net web site, and for giving me a platform to further explain some points.
Eventually I will get this material refined to the point where no one will be stupid enough to try to imply that the Paresev has any role in modern hang gliding. Well any honest person anyway.
I note that you consistently avoid answer questions contained in the above posts, and that you also fail to back up your opinions with anything but a stubborn refusal to admit that you are wrong.
Publishing lies can not really be classed as innocent blogging.
By microsoar
#70587
Paresev has any role in modern hang gliding
Never said it did. Just said:
The rigid frame and delta sail arrangement indisputably existed prior to Dickenson’s version, like NASA’s 1962 Parasev (right) and even in Australia, courtesy of the Aerostructures Ski Plane
I may have mistakenly attributed the photo to 1962, but that will be fixed on the blog. The sail arrangement shown, however, is that which replaced the poorly cut one in early 1962. (see the Parasev Flight Log available on the web)

If I consistently refuse to answer questions above it's generally because:
a) I don't have the time you seem to have to ask them.
b) Many of the answers are self-evident.

I should point out that the post on the blog got almost no traffic until your contribution in this forum. Thank you.
User avatar
By flyingthroughrock
#70604
You seem to have a lot of time to manipulate the article on your blog, and to write excuses. Your excuse for your refusal to answer my questions is rather weasle like don't you think?
As to your website's visitors. Since John Dickenson first told me about your web site, we have been letting people know about it so that they can see who the Aussie is who is spreading such dishonest rubbish. Frankly we thought that Bill Moyes would have to be behind it, it is so like the story he has always tried to claim was the truth. To us you are just pushing his old lies. I have dealt with this debate so many times but certainly you are one of the most difficult people to explain it to, this is why I wonder what your agenda is. Nothing you have said is original, that is similar to your glider designs I guess, it's just surprising that anybody (Well apart from crazy Joe Faust.) would be stupid enough to try to push such obviously dishonest views.
I hope that you enjoy your infamy.
Don't be fooled into thinking that the real game is happening on your web site, or even on this one, for all of your bombast you have no idea of what is going on.
And it dosen't exactly take me long to deal with things like this, I've been involved in researching this story for two years and I have some pretty impressive back up and resourses when it comes to dealing with this subject. You are an annoyance but not a challenge at all. You're wrong, some day you are going to realize that, I feel sorry you.
Cheers,
Graeme
#73089
GH fails to distinguish the traditional line between
mechanical invention
and
ornamental invention.

A college gliding club Schlesischer Flugsport Club in 1908 demonstrated a cable-stayed simple triangle control bar with pilot hung from wing behind the control bar. Breslau 1908. A photograph is researched and obtained by Stephan Nitsch and is published in www.HangGliderHistory.com
Copyright is in public domain as the photograph is over 100 years old.

Pic is on OZreport.

The queenpost as control stick in one or two of such has been since at least Leonard da Vinci. Dickenson did not invent the control system at Graeme purports.
Preliminary note:
http://www.josephfaust.com/hgh/control/queenposting.jpg

GH is pushing meta claims that do not hold up.
The word invention needs to be distinguished to the traditional two kinds:
mechanical
ornamental
Dickenson does not win mechanical invention.
He had particular appearance lines that used the mechanical inventions of others in whole and in part.

The 1961 directive by Paul Bikle in NASA to Charles Richard to build the wing in focus occurred BECAUSE Paul Bikle was already aware that the wing had already been studied for four years in the bowels of NASA and NACA 1958 forward.

The argument of JD's blindness to so much cannot validly be used for getting merit for global invention. There is a nice human-interest story in JD and one of significance to part of hang gliding history; such story is being muddied by the GH over-claiming. Blindness and niceness does not win global firm mechanical invention merit. It is easy to get ornamental invention; just change appearance lines. Those who change appearance lines enough to get a buying customer set might make a profit. But getting some people to buy a product of particular ornamental appearance does not win mechanical invention. Making pleasing appearing products is significant for human culture. But keep in mind the distinction of mechanical invention from ornamental invention. And in so doing, protect those who would give their talents and time to bolster the present and future of hang gliding. The GH grab for unmerited mechanical invention for his heart's eye JD has the potential of injuring how people will contribute toward the advance of hang gliding. So, the matter of the GH Grab event should be important to the leaders of the hang gliding community. Will the hang gliding community wake up and help to get CLARITY with respect to the GH happening?

Full appreciation of all of hang gliding history, aircraft history, control systems, truss systems, Chanute, and all 1800s control mechanics for hang gliders will reveal how empty is any claim for mechanical invention by GH for his love JD.
http://HangGliderHistory.com already, though only 5% complete, has evidence that JD cannot be held as mechanical inventor of the device, not the tether, not the seat, not the queenposts for pilot positioning for control....and certainly not the wing involved. Nothing. Even JD used the traditional control solution in his gyrocopter kite...up to mechanical invention. The GH meta claims for the ALL of everything is being pushed very aggressively and has resulted in errors being rubbger-stamped in FAI and plaques. GH slams scores of people with personal attacks while trying to put over a very large false claim of invention. By neglecting to distinguish mechanical invention from ornamental product tweaks, he also highly abuses the generosity of Rogallo; Rogallo knew the difference by way of having applied for and received approval for both kinds of patents: mechanical and also the appearance ornamental type. To work to correct the GH massive aggression is eating up huge amounts of bandwidth; the damage he is doing to JD, himself, and to hang gliding history is becoming very substantial. It is easy for GH to grab; it make for exponential extra work for everyone else to find out what he grabs and aim to correct the matter. The clarity and cleanup will cost those who care.
Some SEES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_control_frame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bikle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Hill_Palmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite_types
And then study all the early 1800 guys; they already found the mechanics for what was in the JD kite. Refinding does not win global historical invention merit.
Lift,
Joe
Attachments
queenposting.jpg
queenposting.jpg (95.13 KiB) Viewed 10718 times
tcf18912008.jpg
tcf18912008.jpg (119.33 KiB) Viewed 10718 times
1908StephanNitschCollection.jpg
1908StephanNitschCollection.jpg (39.91 KiB) Viewed 10718 times
3194514.jpg
3194514.jpg (56.5 KiB) Viewed 10717 times
1896ChanuteTCFonMWG.jpg
1896ChanuteTCFonMWG.jpg (37.92 KiB) Viewed 10717 times
User avatar
By joefaust
#73097
More file shares:
Attachments
tcfangles.jpg
tcfangles.jpg (70.38 KiB) Viewed 10714 times
tcf.jpg
tcf.jpg (9.25 KiB) Viewed 10714 times
Tuchner1911circa.jpg
Tuchner1911circa.jpg (44.52 KiB) Viewed 10714 times
fs3-besenstiel.jpg
fs3-besenstiel.jpg (20.89 KiB) Viewed 10714 times
1923hansrichter.jpg
1923hansrichter.jpg (15.04 KiB) Viewed 10714 times
User avatar
By joefaust
#73099
Some file shares:
See the wing that encircles the earth; positions for billions to pilot the wing. Tether yourself from the wing.
Attachments
oneHGWorld.jpg
oneHGWorld.jpg (21.25 KiB) Viewed 2792 times
onedownuk.jpg
onedownuk.jpg (19.2 KiB) Viewed 2792 times

I tried to run the Python script but it only gener[…]

Merely theorizing here, again... (beware of specul[…]

Saturday, October 13th at Villa. All seven HGs so[…]

Burning Desire to Fly on Friday

Wow, those guys get in close with their big birds.[…]