I removed wingspans article for now. Lets focus on the table full of facts first. Then ill think about reintroducing the article. Sg 08:24, 30 August 2007 (PDT)
Dang it Erik, you keep undoing my changes about top speed in an HG. I have seen an HG do 100mph with my own eyes. You keep putting it back to 80mph. Sg
The fact that parts can be damaged on a hang glider, does not make this an unfair comparison to PG's. PG's also get damaged parts, ripped pockets, cuts or abrasions on their lines. These are actually more difficult to repair than easy to pop in HG parts, which makes the point that much stronger for hang gliders.
You will find 20 year hold hang gliders that you can fly, but you will NEVER find a 20 year old paraglider that has been flown every season. Hang Gliders clearly have longer durability and if their pilot totally wrecks them, thats not the hang gliders fault. Sg 09:22, 26 January 2008 (PST)
SG, The original article was pretty biased (for example, instead of objectively describing flying positions, it compared HG prone to flying like an eagle, and PGs to.. I forget, but I think the cheesy eagle comparison wasn't needed, just say you haev a less obstructed view, ad can turn around easier, and can fly supine if you want)- I assumed the 100 mph was part of it, I have yet to see any manufacturer claim anything much over 80 mph. Didn't know it was you putting it there, I assumed it was a rabid anti PG guy, like the one posting about how PGs will never be safe because parachutes are safety equipment only for emergencies not meant to remain in the air long, or something like that.
End each edit with four tilda's (what are they called? the squiggle on the key next to the #1 key) and it will add your name and timestamp for future reference. Flying prone eagle like is not bias, it captures the advantage quite nicely, after all, this is an HG sport promotion site. Flying prone is one of the big reasons I fly HG. As for manufacturers, what they claim is highly biased by liability/litigation threats. They would never want you to fly that fast, but its been done, and hang gliders can in fact do this. For example, I break the VNE on my glider during 95% of my flights. Thats how ridiculously low they set their numbers to avoid lawsuits. Once again, pro HG marketing positions are not anti-PG, they are PRO-HG, nothing more. This site does not exist for the promotion of PG. There are plenty of paragliding sites for that. Sg 15:57, 26 January 2008 (PST)
Interesting that designbydave would ask this question today. I received my USHPA magazine today. In it was an article titled "Zen and the Art of Paraglider Maintenance", where a PG pilot describes replacing all the lines on his glider after landing in an undesireable spot.
Seems to me that a PG canopy, being that it is made lightweight nylon and has lots and lots of small diameter lines, would be especially vulnerable when taking off or landing on anything but a grassy meadow. Maybe one of our biwingual pilots can elaborate. --FormerFF 19:33, 26 January 2008 (PST)
I forget the exact wording of the original article, but I do recall it seeming a little too pro-HG and anti-PG, biased. Maybe its just me, but alot of times I'm reading something, and get the feeling its biased propaganda, and the work looses its credibility. It is possible for something to be too good - I it starts sounding too good to be true. I'm not talking VNE, but max speed, for example, Moyes lists the Litespeeds' VNEs in the 50's, but says V max is in the high 70's. All WW gliders seem to have a VNE of 53, and the T2 has a V max in the low 70s according to them I think. They keep the VNE low for liability, but still say what they think the maximum attainable speed is. Erik Boehm 21:38, 29 January 2008 (PST)
What Wills Wing claims is the max attainable speed is simply wrong and has been disproven countless times in speed gliding competition. Should the wiki contain the factual truth, even if it sounds too good to be true, or should it contain false information provided by manufacturers that are scared of liability? A T2 with a VNE max in the low 70's is simply a joke and doesnt remotely reflect reality. Sg 15:30, 2 February 2008 (PST)
Linking to the thread with evidence of single surface glide ratio for future reference http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=7060
One of the meta challenges of this article, IMHO, has to do with the rash bifurcation of just two categories. Hang gliders arrive technically from full limpness (governable gliding parchute of single surface) to full solid; the spectrum is continuous from limpness to solid for the makeup of a hang glider. Popular PGs are simply on that hang glider spectrum of limpness to solid. To fix the discussion and presentation as though PGs are not on the hang glider spectrum is to cut out a huge valid space of consideration. That is, the meta set of "hang gliders" includes proper subsets, one on which is PGs. Indeed, in the early 1960s aviation circles actually had the stiffened four-boom hang glider called by "paraglider" when the fully limp governable parachute hang glider was then called "parawing." More than just semantics, the essence of "hang glider" spreads in a way the encompasses all levels of stiffenings up to even full solid. There is thus an bias that begins even at the title. Then the chart leaves out so very many hang glider possibilities. What are we to do Woopy, with stiff triangle control framed taut-held Jalbert parfoils, extremely-boned Jalbert parafoils ...? Flying each kind of hang glider will have its special concerns with various degrees of importance. One day associations will be faced with the stark reality that the full spectrum is rich while the bifurcation to two camps only is handicapping development and activities. PGs are hang gliders; when that is forgotten and hard commercial interests have their play, then the picture of analysis gets muddied. Some hang gliders of a certain limpness will have certain challenges when meeting certain control and gust conditions; solutions for such will be this or that. Other hang gliders that are fully solid simply will have no billow flexibility and no collapse, but will have other challenges. Joefaust 08:58, 12 December 2008 (PST)