US Hawks Hang Gliding Association

I just wanted to open a topic to discuss how we can construct a history of hang gliding timeline. There's another topic (Hang Gliding Timeline - Gathering Data = http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1070) for collecting data, so this topic is about what we want to do with that data and how we can best present it.

I suspect there will be two fundamental ways to display the data - "raw" and "interpreted". The "raw" format will essentially be the entire list of events with all of the "importance" information stripped. It's up to the reader to sift through the hundreds (or maybe thousands) of events to decide what is important to them. The "interpreted" format, on the other hand, is what we normally get when we read about history. In that case someone has used the events to tell a story based on what they think is important. That's what the importance values will control. It's important to note that there may be many different "interpretations" of the same basic facts. We might all agree, for example, that someone flew a particular design of glider on a particular date. There may be photographs of the event which we all agree are genuine. But there may be widely varying differences between people with regard to the importance of that event in the overall history of the sport. So that would require that different interpretation "filters" be applied to the data depending on what the viewer wanted to see or believe. By the way, the use of different interpretation "filters" would allow us build custom filters which turn the historical database into things like our own personal logbooks, or the history of a flying site, or the history of a particular brand of wing. These would each result from a particular "filter" being applied to the larger database of hang gliding information.

My hope is that the hang gliding community can generally work together to build the basic timeline itself - even though there may be disputes between the importance (interpretations) of various items.

Practicality

As I mentioned in the opening post, the historical data that we collect could be used for all kinds of grand projects (like personal logbooks, site logs, presenting history according to varying interpretations). But that can be a lot of work, and it's not clear if we'll ever get to that level of sophistication. So let me be much more concrete about what I plan to do in the near future.

Right now, I'm thinking that I will write a program to read through the entire data collection topic and pull out the events that people have posted. These events will be recognized by having a date (YYYY-MM-DD) or partial date (date with question marks in some fields) as the first entry on any line. The program will then integrate all the events from all the posts into a single sorted list. Any exact duplicates (same date, importance, and description text) will be removed. But any non-exact duplicates (same date, but different importance or description) will be kept so that we can see that there's a difference in interpretation for that event. The output from the program will be pretty much like the input, and it will use the same importance "sizing" for the events. I'll then post that result as our current timeline either at the top of a topic designed for that purpose (I might create a new topic or simply post the updated version at the top of this topic or the data collection topic). That's my near term goal (maybe within a few days). The next small step might be to tag each event with the name of the person who posted it. Then if the same event is posted by two different people, I could allow the user to select one person's "view" or the other person's "view" or a combined "view". That would start moving into the process of interpretation.

I finished an initial cut at my program to convert posted events into an event time line. It basically goes through the data collection topic and creates an "event" for each line in every post that starts with a YYYY-MM-DD entry. It then sorts all of those events and prints them out in a formatted list. The current version chops each entry to about 100 characters to make it more readable. It also preserves the font size while dropping all other tags (like BOLD, etc). Future renderings might preserve more of the information as we see fit.

Here's the current output:

• 1810-??-?? : Sir George Cayley instructs the world about gliding. Pendulum weight-shift control is understood.
• 1812-??-?? : Thomas Walker instructs the world about the principles of gliding.
• 1883-??-?? : : John J. Montgomery exploits.188c-??-?? : William Beeson has series of patent teachings18??-??- ? :
• 1883-??-?? : John J. Montgomery exploits.
• 188c-??-?? : William Beeson has series of patent teachings
• 189?-??-?? : Series of many hang gliders built and flown by Otto Lilienthal.
• 18??-??-?? : Boy is lifted off ground in a Cayley device.
• 18??-??-?? : Percy Pilcher, etc.
• 18??-??-?? : Octave Chanute, etc.
• 18??-??-?? : Augusts M. Herring, etc.
• 18??-??-?? : Wenham
• 18??-??-?? : Brothers Lilienthal wing run a small wing.
• 18??-??-?? : James Means publishes big time
• 1904-??-?? : Berck Beach hang gliders and the crowds seeing the foot-lauching.
• 1908-??-?? : Breslau's Cable-stayed Triangle Control Bar For Hang Gliders
• 1908-??-?? : In a gliding club's hang glider: a left and right sail had cable-stayed A-frame (triangle control fr
• 190?-??-?? : Santos-Dumont in his Demoiselle exhibited A-frame with pilot pressing basebar and pilot slung from f
• 1948-??-?? : Francis Rogallo patented a design for a simple flexible wing
• 1954-??-?? : Joe Faust begins his flying career to give root to his publishing on hang gliding. Minimal wing, ten
• 1954-??-?? : Igor Bensen gets cover published using in a low cost kite glider the pilot hung behind triangle cont
• 195?-??-?? : Francis Rogallo teaches, demonstrates, and encourages NASA and many others to explore both limp and
• 195?-??-?? : NASA comprehensively studies hundreds of versions of hang glider wings.
• 1960-??-?? : Tony Prentice designs, builds a hang glider hybrid non-NASA inspired to begin a hang glider life tha
• 1961-11-?? : Popular Mechanics article by Lou Everett (Pterodactyl Flex-Wing)
• 1961-??-?? : Paul Bikle directs the hang glider project Paresev. Charles Richards (? s or not) designs and leads
• 1961-??-?? : Barry Hill Palmer foot launches seven to eight versions of flexible-wing hang gliders.
• 1961-??-?? : Jim Hobson (Lawrence Welk show director) builds and experiments with his hang glider at Dockweiler B
• 1962-??-?? : Mike Burns uses NASA literature as foundations and builds prototypes and final of Ski Plane using te
• 1963-09-05 : Engagement to marriage forms synergistic tidal change from minimal-wing tendon hang gliding flight f
• 1963-??-?? : John Dickenson ends up with NASA-literature-inspired kite glider with appearance for wing and pilot
• 1963-??-?? : John Dickenson developed a weight-shift hang glider with TCF
• 1967-??-?? : Without Visible Means of Support, book is published. Author: Richard Miller, former editor of Soarin
• 1969-??-?? : Finally an Australian downhill ski launch occurs (not wing running foot launching) off mountain: Bil
• 196?-??-?? : Jim Foreman coordinates with Richard Miller and George Uveges to produce hang glider Bamboo Butterfl
• 196?-??-?? : Barry Hill Palmer gives information to Richard Miller.
• 196?-??-?? : at Dockweiler: several foot launch hang glider; crowd sees.
• 196?-??-?? : Group of Soaring Society of America communicate strongly in hang gliding matters and have six issues
• 196?-??-?? : Radical change in form to "upside down" or "backwards" for minimal wing placemen
• 1970-??-?? : 1970 as "Jonathan Livingston Seagull — a story." This gave energy to many who would advan
• 1971-05-23 : Otto Lilienthal meet
• 1973-??-?? : Founding of Wills Wing by Bob and Chris Wills
• 1973-??-?? : First U.S. National Hang Gliding Championships - Chris Wills
• 1977-07-?? : Tragic death of Bob Wills in a filming accident
• 1977-07-?? : Jerry Katz flies over 100 miles on a hang glider
• 1978-1?-?? : Bob Kuczewski's first hang gliding flights (Fort Lewis WA, and Cape Kiwanda OR)
• 1993-??-?? : The 8 ft barrier AGL achieved for minimal-wing hang-by-tendon flight off flat ground in nil wind by
• 19??-??-?? : Spratt uses A-frame to control hang glider.
• 1???-??-?? : Horten Brothers and hang glider flying wing
• 1???-??-?? : Book, Hang Gliding by Dan Poynter
• 2005-08-16 : Bob Kuczewski's first hang gliding flight at Torrey Pines
• 2010-08-13 : Founding of the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association
• 2011-05-23 : 40th anniversary Otto Meet Reunion - Marker presented
• 2012-05-23 : 41st anniversary Otto Meet Reunion - Newport Beach Historical Society Event
• 2012-06-16 : Terry Mason in platform launching lockout enters Next Thermal. In his text is found his note

This glider http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_ ... Glider.jpg said to be built by Charles Lamson but it is not clear whose design it was. Geeorge Spratt and Herring demonstrated it to the Wright brothers but they were too occupied with developing their own aircraft to bother with it. The interesting feature of the design was the pitching wings that were hinged on the fuselage thereby giving pendulum pitch control. Spratt went on to develop this with a universal joint to give both pitch and roll as is the case of modern flexwing trike aircraft, including the triangle control frame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spratt-glider.jpg

Wow Tony!!!

That's a rigid wing with a triangular control frame ... from 1929!!!


It even has a safe-splat (or Safe-Spratt?) landing system.   

A basic fact that is almost never mentioned is the debt modern hang gliders owe to sailing technology. Cable-stayed structures, sail design and fabrication, battens, deflexors, readily available hardware and expertise - in short almost EVERYTHING. Sailing vessels are in fact "air"-craft.

Also, a great deal goes into describing the "hero" version of history. I prefer to imagine technology evolving by the transmission and shuffling of ideas thru the population. A graphical depiction of this would be a network that resembled a bush with many interconnections , not a linear list of the accomplishments of our "heros".

The standard rogallo was to my mind a very simple modification to the simple diamond kite we all flew as kids. The "a-frame" - or "trapeze bar" as it was often called back then - we are led to believe now by some that this was a work of creative genius. Well if people are modifying flat kites on bodies of water, with sail boats presumably all around, with there cable braced tubes EVERYWHERE - are we supposed to be surprised when they are re-purposed?

http://www.drachenarchiv.de/Seiten/f_flugtechniker.html
"Handdragen"
========================================================
Excellent Merlin. Your statement is now included in the A-frame (triangle control frame) research project.
=============================
Indeed, the A-frame was VERY present in thousands of aircraft before 1930.
And even precisely as we have it today in 1908, at least:

Schlesischer Flugsport Club "Schlesischen Flugsport-Vereins in Breslau"
a gliding club in territory Breslau.

The "hero" is the synergy of people with technology for purpose.

Tinkerers then find what was already done and embrace for themselves.
The sad thing for me is when a tinkerer makes himself with a medal set that does not validly belong to him, for such pushes aside merit credit belonging to many others.

A happy great thing: Cayley saw the light and we can fly ... (background support from Leonardo da Vinci and many others! And all those sailors! And kite makers for thousands of years! And Oh! those two brothers...G.L. and O. L. ... and those other two brothers who hung from a top wing with a bottom wing as platform: Wright way of hang gliding! Great party!

===================== Related:
? [ ] book: Henry Adams, "Flight" Anyone?
[ ] http://popartmachine.com/art/LOC+1161474 Grade Flieger
[ ] Demoiselle of Santos Dumont

===================== Related: (more)
[ ] Hand-Drachen
[ ] Drachenfliegertypen
[ ] Drachenflieger
[ ] Oktave Chanute
[ ] Hand-Drachen
[ ] Facility: Ingenieur Schrader (engineer Schrader ?)
at Schlesischen Flugsport-Vereins in Breslau
[ ] Chanuteflieger (Hängegleiter)
[ ] See: http://www.lwl.org/marsLWL/scrm/cache/1 ... ial-ca.jpg
[ ] Gleitfliegen
[ ] Gleitflieger von Bruno Kunert ... is interesting also. The arrangement is even more primitive than the A-frame.

[ ]
Early commerce toward support of wing runners:
TRANSLATED BY ROBOT: Carl Andre, Frankfurt, Steinweg 7, depicted
is hardly even try to fly real well-suited, the company also produces various major appliances, which are constructed similarly. The small device will cost 100 marks, a little larger, which is intended to be preliminary to glide" "ist ein ganz kleiner Apparat von Carl André, Frankfurt a. M., Steinweg 7, abgebildet, der wohl kaum schon zu eigentlichen Flug versuchen geeignet ist; die Firma stellt aber auch größere Apparate her, die ähnlich aufgebaut sind."
Gives BobK's Little Hawk a run for its money!
Excerpts from book:
Der praktische Flugtechniker von 1910
von
Dr. Wegner von Dallwitz

Searching for digital copy, if available. Anyone?

Der praktische Flugtechniker: eine Anleitung zur Konstruktion von Hand- und Motordrachen, ihrer Tragdecken, Treibschrauben und anderen Bauteile, und von Schrauben- und anderen fliegern

Ferguson as shown in 1913 edition of Jane's All the World Aircraft
http://www.scribd.com/doc/95504810/1913 ... llustrated

A-frame began to be highly used as undercarriage.
Sample:
J. B. Ferguson, Ltd, Belfast.
Appeared in 1910. Appeared again in 1912 after Ferguson healed from an accident. Span: 12.20 m (40 ft). Area: 230 sq. feet (21 m2). Powered version: H.P. 40.

Following Merlin's neat observation, notice the position of the automobile drivers behind the front two wheels of early automobiles. The Automotor Journal advanced their new publication FLIGHT in Jan. 2, 1909. Reviewing the giant flow of tech with driver behind a front axle holding two wheels seems to be a parenting non-novel flow into the aircraft with the A-frame used in many ways: see the Santos-Dumont and the Grade monoplanes that were gliders when power off:: pilot slung from keeling fuselage on a slung seat and feet on triangle basebar, the axle holding the wheels.

Very showing: http://www.flieg-doch-mal.de/home--aktu ... e-fvl.html See A-frame and feet on basebar; pilot behind A-frame. Click through the small of the page shown: http://www.flieg-doch-mal.de/cms/upload ... l03_kl.jpg

[ ] Anyone furthering:
kann man einen Handdrachen des Frankfurter (Main) Flugtechnischen Vereins erkennen. Es ist ein Zweidecker, Konstruktion Zivilingenieur Ursinus, Redakteur der bekannten Zeitschrift "Flugsport" in Frankfurt am Main, nach der Art der Zweidecker Motor-Drachen.

Merlin wrote:A basic fact that is almost never mentioned is the debt modern hang gliders owe to sailing technology. Cable-stayed structures, sail design and fabrication, battens, deflexors, readily available hardware and expertise - in short almost EVERYTHING. Sailing vessels are in fact "air"-craft.

Excellent obervation!! I think the emergence of various sailing technologies would deserve a place on the timeline.

Merlin wrote:Also, a great deal goes into describing the "hero" version of history. I prefer to imagine technology evolving by the transmission and shuffling of ideas thru the population. A graphical depiction of this would be a network that resembled a bush with many interconnections , not a linear list of the accomplishments of our "heros".

Another excellent observation!! A timeline by itself only shows events ... not causality. Causality is what creates the "bush" that you're talking about.

Personally, I think it's reasonable to place events on a timeline because every event did happen at some time (and possibly over some time period). So placing events on a time line is just collecting the raw data - without drawing any conclusions as to causality. I am hopeful that such a timeline is relatively non-controversial. The "fun" starts when we begin to try to assign causality by saying that one event depended on the existence of another previous event (or events). That's where we can find lots of differing opinions, and some of those differing opinions will have to be resolved in the minds of the reader ... as they should.

So here's a picture of how I see the "bush" that you've mentioned:


The bush has a central trunk which is just made up of events in time. Those events will tend to be somewhat objective statements of who, what, when, and where. The conjecture (and controversy ... and "fun") comes in when we try to infer the causal connections (the "why") between those events.

Right now, I'm hoping we can start by building the trunk of the tree - just the facts. If the differing factions can agree on the basic facts, then we can begin to add the branches and that's where we are more likely to have differing "theories" about what caused what (and how much).