IIRC, the Smithsonian didn't credit the Wright Brothers until after WW2Looks like a Rogallo Wing to me. You'd think the Smithsonian would credit the inventors, Francis and Gertrude Rogallo; Francis was a NASA engineer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogallo_wing
Why?As a Hang Glider pilot, I can’t describe how painful it is to have a Rogallo wing called a paraglider. .
Because Samuel Langley was Secretary of the Smithsonian and had a feud with Wilbur and Orville over his "Aerodrome A" debacle. Ah, politics.IIRC, the Smithsonian didn't credit the Wright Brothers until after WW2
Because "paraglider" is a contrived name for the Rogallo Wing?Why?
Apparently contrived by the inventors. That’s why I’m confused.Because "paraglider" is a contrived name for the Rogallo Wing?
And, if I remember correctly, the Smithsonian only got the Wright Flyer to display once the organization agreed that they would officially recognize the Flyer as the first aircraft. Before that, Orville had lent it to a museum in England. Didn't go to the Smithsonian until 1948.Because Samuel Langley was Secretary of the Smithsonian and had a feud with Wilbur and Orville over his "Aerodrome A" debacle. Ah, politics.
Apparently contrived by the inventors. That’s why I’m confused.
As a Hang Glider pilot, I can’t describe how painful it is to have a Rogallo wing called a paraglider. .
I think paragliders are those goofy looking parachute thingys.
I felt OK with the risk of hang gliding. There's no way I would fly one of those things, they can collapse in a thermal, and tossing the reserve may or may not be successful with all the spinning Dacron already above the pilot.
According to Wikipedia (I acknowledge it's not necessarily an authoritative source) it was NASA who renamed the Rogallo Wing "Parawing". Paraglider was apparently a term combining parachute and glider. The Rogallos had released their patent, US 2,546,078, to the government.Apparently contrived by the inventors. That’s why I’m confused.
Rogallo had been interested in the flexible wing since 1945. He and his wife built and flew kites as a hobby. They could not find official backing for the wing, including at Rogallo's employer National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), so they carried out experiments in their own time. By the end of 1948 they had two working designs using a flexible wing — a kite they called "Flexi-Kite" and a gliding parachute they later referred to as a "paraglider".
Yeah that's a great channel to geek out on!pretty good YouTube channel
It is. My father worked for Goodyear Aerospace at the time. I actually used to have a hand-made test article used for small-scale (5 lb. payload) drops! It was otherwise to be tossed in the trash. It never flew very well, at least with me rigging it.Looks like a Rogallo Wing to me. You'd think the Smithsonian would credit the inventors, Francis and Gertrude Rogallo; Francis was a NASA engineer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogallo_wing
Yeah that's a great channel to geek out on!
PS, I've had people ask me if you can control the Cirrus chute to decide where to land. I initially thought it was a dumb question, but later did acknowledge it would be sort of cool to have that control
Admittedly, trying reconstruct the history is murky at best; I'll concede the Rogallos used the term "paraglider."I’m still confused.
Maybe my confusion is that they were not referring to the flexible wing as a paraglider, but I misread the above as if they had.
I wish Merriam-Webster would cite their sources- it may lead to an interesting read.According to Merriam-Webster, the first known use of the word "paraglider" was in 1944, four years before the Rogallos filed their 1948 patent application.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paraglider#h1
Well, a paraglider has much better performance than an old standard Rogallo...
Yet I believe the safety record of paragliders is somewhat better than rigid hang gliders. But they are more weather limited than a rigid.
Not anything this side of W.W. 2. If it's steerable, even a round 'chute is giving some forward movement and generating some lift. Way down on the back side of the lift curve, but it isn't pure drag.a parachute does not develop lift, it develops only drag, i.e. a force in the direction of the relative wind.
a parachute does not develop lift, it develops only drag, i.e. a force in the direction of the relative wind.
Just to be clear, you weren't quoting me; that quote was from the Rogallos' patent.Not anything this side of W.W. 2. If it's steerable, even a round 'chute is giving some forward movement and generating some lift. Way down on the back side of the lift curve, but it isn't pure drag.
No Nit to Small to Pick.
Exactly. Some lawyer got it wrong.Just to be clear, you weren't quoting me; that quote was from the Rogallos' patent.