Talk:John W. Dickenson/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article is being written to deal properly with the true story of John Dickenson. If you have a problem with it then let me know. At present there is a great deal of defamatory material about John Dickenson and hang gliding on this site. .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthwilldofine (talk • contribs) 05:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I see from the links that there is some controversy between Rogallo and Dickenson. Note that Wikipedia cannot publish The Truth, but only that which has been reliably published. Perhaps you could outline your issues more specifically. First though, you will have to retract any threat of legal action to be unblocked. Kevin (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated to ultralight aviation

Will remove the statement that Dickenson launched ultralight aviation. What launched the ultralight aviation movement was not the Rogallo wing (what he calls the Dickenson wing) or "Flexible wing" but a whole series of rigid-wing motorized hang gliders. The Icarus V flying wing appeared with its tip rudders and swept-back style wing - a rigid biplane designed by genius teen-ager Taras Kiceniuk, Jr, while Larry Mauro's Easy Riser biplane started to sell in large numbers. Hang gliding record holder Don Mitchell Then Mitchell mounted a Nelson 2-cycle engine on it and flew it as a powered glider with wheels for landing gear.[1]</ref> fitted his BF-10 with a motor, though he still used the pilot's legs as undercarriage, an arrangement which persisted until his B-10 Mitchell Wing appeared. Then there was the Manta Fledge IIB, the Pterodactyl series, and the Quicksilver created in 1972 by Bob Lovejoy. If one was to focus on Rogallo wing-ed ultralight aircraft, it is extremely well documented it was invented by NASA, and the first civilian to build a weight-shift powered ultralight aircraft was not dickenson but Barry Hill Palmer; see: Ultralight trike#history. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Recommend deletion of article

Almost all the references are involving a thesis that simply is not true and promulgated by one man who is with the theses of "The inventor of the Modern Hang Glider in 1963" A valid biography by the promoter is highly unlikely. John Dickenson was not the inventor of the modern hang glider. The very idea of "the" modern hang glider is very contentious. The initial author of the article has nearly single-handedly crafted references that he generated or people then referenced what he generated. The whole mechanical principles and parts and functions of what was supposedly invented was evident in gliding and aviation history prior to John Dickenson. If the biography cannot get off the one single focus of an untrue "invention", then the article should be deleted. Joefaust (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your allegation, the FAI reference to the invention of the modern hang glider is reliably published, and clearly asserts that the article subject is notable, and therefore should not be deleted. If you have a personal issue with this, then this article is not the appropriate forum to air those issues. Do you have a reliable source to show the prior invention of the hang glider? Kevin (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, hang gliders were succesfully used from the 1880s by Otto Lilienthal; then they were further developed throughout Germany after the WW-I, complete with weight-shift control system and control frame and later, in California in the late 1960s. Dickenson certainly did not invent hang gliders, and that is extremely well documented, but he did invent a new hang glider format or type which incorporated the already patented Rogallo flexible wing from NASA. Joe, his new ski-kite/glider format was perfected and copied across the world, so he does have the credit of creating a new (succesful)format, not of absolute invention of hang gliders. All that is already presented and documented and referenced in the article "History of Hang Gliding". Joe, the overclaims originaly written in this article have been either deleted, toned down or referenced apropiately. I suggest we leave aside the interpretations and points of view of his creations and reference what we can; debate can take place elsewhere. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I see, there is a difference between the invention of the hang glider, and the invention / development of the modern hang glider. Is that the crux of the issue? Kevin (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the case... a raging 2.5 year-old debate. What constitutes "modern"? Dickenson made a towable kite/glider using an already patented airfoil and then he left the scene. The craft is still his. Others soon improved the kite/wing so that it could be foot-launched and could soar as we know it today. So there is a blurry line between his Ski Wing vs. hang glider vs. kite, invention vs. new format, adaptation vs. invention, etc. The sure thing is that Dickenson's Ski Wing was soon used as a base/template/concept for the flexible wing hang glider manufacturers that flooded the market starting in the 70s. I think for some, the main issue resides on whose "glory" is the invention of the "flexible wing hang glider". Is it the airfoil inventor (Rogallo)? Is it the unique airframe (Dickenson's)? Is it its fine adjustment for soarability (Moyes and Bennett)? A difficult task to engage, as it seems depends on POV: What is invention? Using existing components for a new purpose? Inventing a 'critical' component? What constitutes the most critical component in the development of a hang glider? If someone uses existing components, is that an invention, an adaptation, or a different "format" of an existing aircraft? Is a different use of an old aparatus an "invention"? Who is the inventor of the hang gliding if it started in 1880s with Otto Lilienthal, who based his research on a multitude of other researchers? What about Barry Hill Palmer, who was flying a similar but marginally controllable HG before Dickenson? What about Francis Rogallo and his airfoil patented in the 50s for light aviation/gliders? Nobody can say that a single person "invented" aviation; it may be the same with hang gliders. Joe Faust himself published international periodicals and magazines that catalized international research and the use of HG as a sport; without his enthusiasm and writtings, would the water kites of the late 60s have ever reached any interest in the population? Without his magazines would there have been any interest to develop the skiing kites into soarable flex wing hang gliders? From my perspective, J. Dickenson is quite notable for his influential aparatus; the interpretation of the size and weight of his influence is open for anybody to pick at, and that is the problem here. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The reader ought not be tricked into assuming the patent would fly, if only $$

GH lets slight the resource lacking as the only possible reason for non-award of patent from provisional patent. Indeed, the further fees were not paid and so the patent could not be claim reviewed and could not be awarded. HOWEVER, the reader should not be left with such a short call; had the claims been reviewed, then still the patent may not have been awarded, or the claims cut to some short list. Deep respect for all that Charles Richard did, all that Francis Rogallo did, all that Ryan Aeronautical did, all that Barry Palmer did, all the approved patent claims of the many Rogallo patents, the Spratt patent and published mechanical arts, the published Breslau 1908 hang glider, and the formats of published hang gliders and manned kites prior to Dickenson...means that mechanical principles in the JD kite were not new. As written, the reader right now is left with a push that if funds were available, then award would fall out automatically; such is not fair to the reader or to the prior inventors of the mechanics involved. And "format" is too vague. Barry Palmer had format that lives in modern hang gliders. Paresev had "format" in its hanging-pilot gliders that lives in modern hang gliders. What JD had was specific ornamental specificity, not mechanical form and function. The form that functions was already in hang gliding before JD. His own countryman Mike Burns had "format" that was kite-glider with the Paresev demonstrated wing and the Breslau 1908 demonstrated control wing with cable-stayed triangle control frame. Towing the Rogallo kite was done before JD. GH start of the "biography" is not biography, but a single-headed aim to have for JD an invention center that is not JD's. Precise craft dimensionally for ornament, but not mechanical invention. Inasmuch as the article leaves the reader with the sense that JD mechanically invented functional form principles up to patent mechanical invention, then the article does injustice to the world. Precise ornamental choice, not mechanical invention. Joefaust (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

had the claims been reviewed, the still the patent may not have been awarded, or the claims cut to some short list. OK, I made note of that in the article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe, could you please elaborate on what you mean by "ornamentl choice" and how it differs from invention or adaptation? Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Jan Lavezzari utilized the Conical Wing in 1903 - 1904. W.D. Wanner describes the Conical Wing in a patent that precedes Rogallo.No Rogallo Patent that precedes Dickenson claims the design of the Conical Wing. Barry Hill Palmer indeed flew a wing that preceded the Dickenson Wing, however the wing had inadequate control and the project was dropped. It played no role in the development of the Dickenson Wing. The Dickenson Wing is not defines by the airfoil, but by the Ultra light airframe and control system. The term Rogallo Wing, and the Term Flexible Wing never honestly appplied to hang gliders, these terms do apply to Paragliders however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.149.180 (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. There is absolutely no evidence or even a verbal reference that Dickenson ever heard or saw the Lavessari glider photograph from 1902, and it had no influence on him. Besides, there are written records, even on audio-video interview with Dickenson (enclosed in the article as external links) that he got inspiration for his aircraft from seeing a Rogallo wing airfoil, which he called like that. And that is that. In other matters, your statement that "a wing is not defined by the wing airfoil" makes no sense. It is universally recognized, and documented, even by NASA and the Smithsonian Air & Space Institute that flexible wing airfoil used in hang gliders are 'Rogallo wing' airfoils. You are very welcome to colaborate with referenced facts and less POV and personal attacks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In 1969 John W. Dickenson sent a diary to F.M. Rogallo; in the covering letter, Mr. Dickenson indicated the clear use in 1969 of "ski kite". In the letter, Mr. Dickenson described planning for a power version where he was considering a 30 hp Yamaha engine. He expressed only yet needing a propeller and a fuel tank. Letter was November 17, 1969. In the same letter, he described how he was diverging slight to the auto gyro, to investigate the Bensen air frame for po9wered flex wing appplications. In the letter, Mr. Dickenson indicated that he had done solo in the ski kite where he admitted diverging slightly to the auto gyro in order to investigate the Bensen type air fram for powered uses.

The exact triangle control frame with hung-pilot behind the cable stayed triangle control frame was photographed in 1908 in the territory of Breslau on a hang glider; so mechanical invention of such air framing was done at least by 1908. The entire SkiPlane prior to Dickenson illustrated kite-glider using Rogallo-lead formats for the wing indicated that mechanical invention of ski kites was done prior to the later 1963 Dickenson explorations. See article in Sky Sports, p. 39 and following. Joefaust (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1