Talk:Fly system/Archive 1

New page
This page is new as of 7/8/06, If someone has information regarding other types of fly systems, please include it, also, an image would help greatly. (48v 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

Merging Counterweight fly system into this article
The outline below looks like a pretty good do you guys think we should go with this? --Lekogm 16:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Counterweight fly system has been merged into per WP:BB --Lekogm 04:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is an outline for a merged article--IkeEisenstadt 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fly system


 * Definition
 * Types
 * Arbor and counterweight
 * Single purchase
 * Parts
 * Purchase line
 * Locking rail
 * Rope lock
 * Tension pulley
 * Arbor
 * Lift lines
 * Head block
 * Loft block
 * Grid
 * Trim chain
 * Batten
 * Double purchase
 * Operation
 * cautions and limitations
 * accessories
 * Hemp and sandbags
 * Parts
 * Sandbags
 * Sundae
 * Cleat
 * Clew
 * Loading Gallery
 * Pin rail
 * Operation
 * cautions and limitations
 * accessories
 * Motorized
 * Parts
 * Operation
 * cautions and limitations
 * accessories
 * Related hardware and equipment

Safety
I think we need to talk  about  safty  ain the articale  espectily  how to handle a runaway lineset! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.37.186 (talk • contribs)

The article is about how a flying system works, not a instruction manual. I think it would be best not to get to specific, just covering what can go wrong and what causes it not how to fix it. Leaderofearth 11:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Pin rail
I have two pictures of two different styles of a pin rail that I uploaded today. They're pretty high in the resolution. They can be found at Image:Small pin rail.JPG and Image:Fixed pin rail.JPG

Merging Fly tower into this article
(My 2p worth; I am not an expert on this subject). I disagree with the merge, since the tower is a permanent architectural feature of the building, with or without the fittings within it. Bards 16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Agree merge, Fly tower's a stub, and a pretty small stub at that. It'll be fairly clear once it's in that it's a physical part of the theatre, but the function of it it totally part of flying. --RedHillian 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

History
Did you know that they used to whistle to signal the fly man

Yup. Theaters often used sailors to operate the flying gear and before the days of electronic communications the sailors would whistle signals to each other. That is the beginning of the superstition about whistling in a theater. In days of old you could accidentally start or end a performance.

BTW please sign your talk page messages with ~

Leaderofearth 09:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hemp House
It's my understanding (and I am SO not a rigger) that a hemp house, while using hemp (actually manila) rope, isn't "muscle powered" so much as the counterweight isn't in an arbor, but in sandbags. My copy of Glereum's Stage Rigging isn't in front of me right now, so I can't check on this. Could someone who is a rigger either edit the article or correct me on this? 69.228.215.182 03:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)unregistered user


 * Hemp houses arnt necessarily sandbag weighted, since its almost impossible to match the weight with sandbags without using a hell of a lot of small ones. you attach sandbags to get close to the weight, and to assist your raising or lowering an object. thus there is still a considerable amount of pure muscle involved when working in a hemp house. -Zachary Cohen 17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Split
This article is getting long and unwieldy. I'm proposing that we pull hemp and counterweight systems into separate articles. They would be linked to with a short summary from this page, and the page would still discuss things that are relevant to all types of fly systems. Please add what you think here. 48v (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh. I can certainly see a split for counterweighted systems. However, a splitting off the hemp system seems almost unnecessarily redundant; a summary of it would be half as long again as the original. If the article grows, a split certainly seems to make sense. No strong feelings either way, at least for me; keeping it here is more central, but longer; splitting it is more redundant and yet more concise (on the main Fly system page). Ourai  тʃс 04:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree to splitting off counterweight fly; it's quite large and extensive. It should be split off, with small excerpts kept here with a "Main Article" link. Hemp fly, not so much. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so sure this should be split. It is a good, comprehensive overview of the Fly system, and fail to see how splitting would be beneficial to the article. Shorter isn't always better.82.22.149.67 (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Splitting wouldn't be appropriate at this stage as the description of the counterweight and hemp are integral to this article. If either section grew to be too large for the article, then it could be split off in WP:Summary style at that time. I have removed the split tags.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)