[Bob Kuczewski]

I took a lot of classes on the way to my degree in Aeronautical Engineering. Some of them I remember ... most I don't.  

But I do remember one of our design professors telling us a story about a survey of general aviation pilots to explore their preferences between "high wing" and "low wing" airplanes. According to the professor, the results were split with about half preferring high wing designs and the other half preferring low wing designs. Surprisingly, however, the primary reason given for the different choices was ... the same. Both groups cited "better visibility" as the reason for their choice.  

My professor concluded that it really depended on what they wanted to see when they were flying.  

I'm just mentioning this because different folks look for different things when they pick up a hang glider to go fly. Some like to go cross country. Some like maximum altitude to see the world. Some just want to boat around for as long as they can. And others have their best times hanging with friends on a training hill taking lots of short fun flights. There are places where wheels and restraint devices make sense, and places where they're just in the way. To each his own.  

[Bill Cummings]

"To each his own." said the farmer as he turned and kissed the cow.

[reluctantsparrow]

great input from all, Ricks record keeping is priceless. The obvious answer for hang glidings survival in light of Ricks Stats is to separate hG from Pg as the Us Hawks propose.
As far as PG deaths, I know we are talking wheels for HG and saving HG pilots but as I just watched another PG die last week can I post an "idea" for saving PG pilots as well?
Both pilots I saw go down struggled to regain control all the way to the deck.
This is a fatal flaw with longtime pilots of both HG and pG. We have always "flown" our way out of a situation and are reluctant to release controls and reach for the chute.
I watched Willi Muller go down in the same fashion. Fighting to regain control all the way to the deck and not going for the reserve.
The answer is almost too simple.
A ballistic "smart chute" that automatically fires when two triggers are activated.
The first trigger is the critical height AGL, the second trigger is an unsafe descent rate.
The order in which these triggers are activated does not matter, the device only fires when both triggers are stimulated so a PG can suffer a "collapse" at altitude and only one trigger (the unsafe descent rate) is activated but the device does not fire unless the pilot falls below an unsafe AGL in which the second trigger activates and the parachute is automatically deployed.
likewise, When flying close to terrain, the "AGL" trigger is activated but the chute does not fire until the "unsafe descent rate" trigger is also activated.
This type of "smart chute" could also be used for hang gliding to prevent HF deaths and this device would use technology we already possess. Basically a full terrain map for AGL, an altimeter, and a vario that feed the info to a firing mechanism for a ballistic chute.
Then, Both PG and HG can "fight to regain control" all the way to the deck as is the common instinct and the chute deploys automatically.

Okay, back to wheels or skids. Of course, when I talk of such thing I am referring to "adequate wheels" which I define as wheels of sufficient size, efficiency, and strength to handle the weight of the aircraft, the speed of the landing, and the roughness of the field being landed in.
Most the wheels I see are not adequate for serious cross country and only serve as a placebo.
Wheels that inflate in flight via co2 is cool but I have one friend sitting in a wheelchair that needed those wheels for a blown launch. So how is the wheel inflated for launch, deflated for flight, then reinflated for landing?
How about one DT with compressed air inside and one DT with a vacuum tied into the base tube with a couple of "buttons"? One button inflates the wheels and the other sucks the air out? Way too complicated but just throwing it out there.

[Rick Masters]

The answer is almost too simple.

No kidding: Fly a hang glider instead.


Here's a funny idea I was toying with for quite a long time.
It kinda illustrates the Law of Unintended Consequences that comes back to bite you when you cleverly devise complex solutions to simple problems.
It's also a little embarrassing for me to post because I should know better.

I thought, "What if, instead of wheels or even a parachute, you fitted a "smart ballistic cannon" to your keel? The computer would use a rangefinder to determine your distance and speed, and already knowing your mass and the wind speed, calculats via GPS coordinates and a true airspeed instrument, your velocity at touchdown. Then when you come in to land, at the moment your feet touch the ground, the cannon adjusts its angle to the vector opposite your path and fires an instantly-calculated charge, propelling a projectile on a tether with a mass and velocity exactly equal to your forward momentum - except going in exactly the opposite direction! - bringing you to a perfect and instantaneous halt.

I bet Frank knows why this wouldn't work.

[reluctantsparrow]

The answer is almost too simple.

No kidding: Fly a hang glider instead.

yep, totally agree, and been brainstorming with Kamron of Northwing on how to shift the tidal flow of new pilots from PG back into HG.
As you all know, NOrthwing just came out with a new model called the "skysurfer" that unfolds like an umbrella and only requires the insertion of two tip ribs. Extremely quick set up time. This glider is also very low weight, breaks down to a back-packable size, and flies very slowly, so they could fly patterns with their PG friends without having to dodge traffic like most of us do now.
Couple the "skysurfer" with the flybar which allows PG to use their own harness and fly in a position they are used to and viola, we have a configuration that could entice the PG crowd to crossover....or not.
It would take a lot of promoting in much the same manner as the late Bill Bennett (who I was employed by for a short time) introduced HG to America.
The truth is, when I set up to fly suprone with the flybar it is the PG crowd that gathers around and asks questions, NOT the HG crowd.
The PG crowd is VERY interested in the flybar.

[Rick Masters]

I hope they're also VERY interested in stall speed.

[Frank Colver]

RICK SAYS: >>>I thought, "What if, instead of wheels or even a parachute, you fitted a "smart ballistic cannon" to your keel? The computer would use a rangefinder to determine your distance and speed, and already knowing your mass and the wind speed, calculats via GPS coordinates and a true airspeed instrument, your velocity at touchdown. Then when you come in to land, at the moment your feet touch the ground, the cannon adjusts its angle to the vector opposite your path and fires an instantly-calculated charge, propelling a projectile on a tether with a mass and velocity exactly equal to your forward momentum - except going in exactly the opposite direction! - bringing you to a perfect and instantaneous halt.

I bet Frank knows why this wouldn't work. <<<


FRANK SAYS: What could possibly go wrong?

[Bob Kuczewski]

FRANK SAYS: What could possibly go wrong?

As brilliant as humans are, we still have a hard time anticipating the failure modes in complex systems. We still need to actually see and have first hand experience with REAL systems to find the failure modes that we didn't imagine when thinking up a solution for the original problem.

My hat is off to those brave folks like Frank and Jim (and many others) who've taken their ideas from the safety of their imaginations into the perilous world of reality. Our lives are richer for their efforts.

[Rick Masters]

C'mon you guys, it's a physics problem.
Hint:

[Frank Colver]

The cannon fires and the pilot slams head to front portion of keel since the cannon is attached to the keel and not the mass of the pilot. Then the projectile reaches the end of its tether and more hell breaks loose. Spectators do this . Pilot does this

Oh, damn, it set the high, dry, grass on fire

Of course the projectile can never equal the mass of the entire flying sorry sight because it is a component part of it.

Frank