Xref: utzoo sci.space:11794 sci.space.shuttle:3267
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!sun!aeras!tneale
From: tneale@aeras.UUCP (Tom Neale)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Hang gliders and "bailing out"
Message-ID: <333@aeras.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jun 89 01:45:03 GMT
References: <1989May29.032320.2277@utzoo.uucp> <486@cybaswan.UUCP> <1989Jun4.055452.12921@utzoo.uucp> <16879@sequent.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneale@aeras.UUCP (Tom Neale)
Organization: Arix Corporation  San Jose, CA.
Lines: 25

In article <16879@sequent.UUCP> jjb@sequent.UUCP (Jeff Berkowitz) writes:

>Henry's analysis of the difference is (as usual :-) correct.  Parafoil-
>like designs, however, are in use both as kites and as human-carrying
>gliders; the latter are popular especially in Europe.  Their advantage
>over hang gliders is that the lack of airframe makes them easy to fold
>into a backpack and carry; they have a relatively poor glide, however,
>and appear to be difficult for humans to flare (and therefore land) safely.

On the contrary, ram air (squares as we call them) parachutes are quite
the norm in sport parachuting today.  Their glide is a respectible
3:1 or better (great when compared to a round parachute at <0.4:1).
Forward speeds are 20-30 MPH for most models.

Further, they are quite easy to flare and land safely. I have over 
1300 square jumps with no problems and landings are normally tippy-toe
soft. :-)

This is no longer shuttle related but I felt compelled to clear
up any mis-information about a subject near and dear to my heart.
-- 
Blue skies,	| ...sun!aeras!tneale	| 
		| in flight:     N2103Q	|         The hurrieder I go
Tom Neale	| in freefall:   D8049	|         the behinder I get.
		| via the ether: WA1YUB	|