Talk:Glidersport LightHawk

Your article Microlift is not written according to wikipedia's standdards for articles. It reads like an advertisment and a promotion of the subject. I tagged it with a rewrite tag. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Tutorial before making any further edits and as guides to help in the rewriting process of the article. --Tainter 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have had contact with JohnCD and Ahunt. I apologize for the ruckus. The Wikipedia policy regarding links has been described; plus, I checked a number of relevant Wikipedia topics. The new page created by Ahunt, Glidersport LightHawk is very nice. Thank you. S.Steve.Adkins (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow

An empty weight of 68kg!!!!!!!!!!!! I wouldn't want to fly that in anything other than a light thermal it would get ripped to pieces!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The number is apparently correct according to the source cited. The aircraft is built using modern lightweight composites that result in strength with low empty weight. It will be interesting to see what the empty weight is once it has finished certification as that process requires a good deal of structural redundancy for composites, which is why certified composite aircraft like the Cirrus SR22 and Cessna 400 have such high empty weights. - Ahunt (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Empty weights less than this have been achieved with traditional wooden construction. The Windspiel, which would have been a microlift glider had the category been invented in 1932, weighed 55.5 kg. Both Simons and Brütting give essentially the same figure. Like the current breed of microlifts, it aimed to exploit weak/narrow thermals via small radius circling enabled by low stalling speed from a low wing loading. The trade-off was lower L/D from the lower aspect ratio.TSRL (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The wooden Hall Vector One had an empty weight of 150 lbs and the Maupin Carbon Dragon has an empty weight of 145 lbs and is a well-proven design. Both of those had the advantage of not having to go through certification though. - Ahunt (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This article

I have just discovered that Ahunt has filled out this topic. At first glance ... it looks great! DO NOT DELETE!

Thank you all,

S.Steve.Adkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Steve.Adkins (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

the new page looks great! [s.steve.adkins]s steve adkins 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that you like the way it looks. I always wanted to start the article on this aircraft, but lacked any third party references. I just recently bought a copy of the main ref now cited, the World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2011-12. Expanding the article depends on finding more reliable references. I wrote all of this with one ref, plus a bit from the company website, but please do post here if there are more references that can be incorporated. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am an unpaid volunteer who agreed to help Danny Howell of Glidersport with his website which was previously developed by high school students. While visiting So. California, I was able to see actual parts in his factory. I can attest to their light weight and extreme strength due to proprietary composite structure designed by Danny. Thank you for defending the LightHawk against the comments made above. Hopefull, my signature will work now that I have changed my preferences. S.Steve.Adkins (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)