Jun 14, 2005, 6:44 AM
Post #1 of 164
(14216 views)
Shortcut
Jeb's Wingsuit Landing Attemp?
Can't Post
Hope I didn't get anyone excited with the title there....I was just wondering if anyone had any info on his landing attempt? He had said it would be possible by this summer...so I was wondering if there were any plans to actually make an attempt this summer? And if so, when and where? Thanks for any info.
I know- most of you don't care, and this is old news and quite boring- but some of us do find this rather interesting. Sorry to add to your boredom- move along.
I think it can be done and think I kinda understand the idea. Canopy pilots have been landing on moving things for some time now. Boats, cars, motorcycles, trains etc. If you match the speed to which you're flying, then you can land safely. For about a million bucks, that sounds about right to build a rather large sled type something on the side of a hill that could match him forward speed for him to land on, or just a big conveyor belt.
For about a million bucks, that sounds about right to build a rather large sled type something on the side of a hill that could match him forward speed for him to land on, or just a big conveyor belt.
Or land into a similar rubber trap used by fighters.
The reason some of us yawn, is this has been discussed to death, with this that and the other gadget.
When someone can land without any giant airbags, landing gear etc etc and walk away from it in one piece, then I'll be interested, otherwise its just a stunt, be even more impressed when they can take off;)
To an extent I understand you- but my question wasn't "How is Jeb going to do this?" It was- Anyone here if he will make the attemp this summer (as he said he should be able to do) and if so, where and when?
Come on be nice, you are a moderator lead by example. Besides Jeb's attempt I know of a couple other guys attempting to attempt this same feat. I wish them all the least anguish and the most success.
Besides if we had some more real developements in the the blade and Phi arena people wouldn't post more querries about landing attempts.
TomAiello (D 22400)
Moderator
Jun 15, 2005, 8:50 PM
Post #10 of 164
(13755 views)
Shortcut
Dude, we have threads for that. Let's keep this one on topic, okay? Tom, my shit was tongue and cheek. except for the part of more than one friend going for the landing challenge. Thats real and on topic now back to uze guyz in the dot .com studios.
(This post was edited by VectorBoy on Jun 15, 2005, 9:44 PM)
All I can say to those people attempting a landing STUNT is "I hope I don't have to tell your friends 'I told you so' ". I have a lot more wingsuit experience than Jeb Corlis (as do more than a few people in this forum) and I am simply not interested in any media hype concerning "landing a wingsuit." I sure as hell don't need to see another wingsuit fuckup like Royal Gorge on the news. You huggers out there can take that anyway you like it.
All I can say to those people attempting a landing STUNT is "I hope I don't have to tell your friends 'I told you so' ". I have a lot more wingsuit experience than Jeb Corlis (as do more than a few people in this forum) and I am simply not interested in any media hype concerning "landing a wingsuit." I sure as hell don't need to see another wingsuit fuckup like Royal Gorge on the news. You huggers out there can take that anyway you like it.
Chuck
Ok, so let's say that your wrong. And you don't have to tell anyones friends "I told you so." What if, in turn, Jeb gets to tell you "I told you so." What if someone with "alot less wingsuit experience" does something that you can't or won't try to do? Will he get any credit then??? Damn, I ask a simple question, to which I still haven't gotten an answer for- and in turn I get a thread that is more suited for Speakers Corner. I understand that some people don't care- but there are those of us out there that are interested, that do want to see it happen. So I guess all you naysayers out there can take that anyway you like it. Mike
this project has become bigger then most people realize. We found technology that not only makes this possible but makes it reasonable for any competent wing-suit pilot. This project is a huge undertaking. We were given a budget of close to one million dollars to start out with and we believed that would be enough to construct the different forms of technology that would be needed to make this safe. We went to the people who would be manufacturing what we needed and when we got the first bids back i almost passed out. The budget exploded from just under one million to over 6 million Dollars.
When I go the bid back for the key piece of technology the guy said i have very bad news for you Jeb. I said what is it. They said it will cost close to 3 million $ to build what you need (and remember that is only for one piece of the 4 pieces of technology needed to pull this off), but that's not the problem. I said if that's not the problem then i don't want to know what the problem is. He said it will take us one year to construct it after we have the money.
So right now we are working on two things. We are working on bringing the costs down for the overall project and we are working on finding additional funding. We will do both, it's just going to take time.
I find it funny how everybody thinks this is so impossible. Try to think outside the box. This can be done and I am sorry to say the wing-suit is actually a small part of the project. After we get additional funding this will be something pretty much any competent wing-suit pilot will be able to do and I believe it could possibly be done without a wing-suit by one of the Norwegian super trackers. The wing-suit will just give you a much larger margin for error.
There is a quote from Einstein that I love, " great spirits often encounter heavy opposition from mediocre minds."
The quote is not intended for you Mike :) Just for the people who talk about things they know very little about...
We found technology that not only makes this possible but makes it reasonable for any competent wing-suit pilot. The budget exploded from just under one million to over 6 million Dollars.
Jeb Corliss
Sorry but call me old school but if this is costing $6M its a little out of the average wingsuit pilots league ;)
For that much money I hope you can take off too and hover and take a decent payload to altitude;)
Good luck with the stunt
TomAiello (D 22400)
Moderator
Jun 16, 2005, 1:18 PM
Post #18 of 164
(13529 views)
Shortcut
Sorry but call me old school but if this is costing $6M its a little out of the average wingsuit pilots league ;)
If the apparatus were re-usable, and set up somewhere convenient like Eloy or Perris, are you saying you wouldn't pay a hundred bucks (or whatever) for a "landing ticket" and give it a go?
Turbine aircraft, wind tunnels, and lots of other toys cost way more, in their entirety, than I can afford individually. That doesn't mean they're way out of my league. It just means that I buy small increments (jump tickets, tunnel time, whatever).
edit to add: I have no inside knowledge of Jeb's attempt, so this is all just hypothetical to me. I'm not trying to imply anything about Jeb's apparatus, financing strategies, or re-usability.
(This post was edited by TomAiello on Jun 16, 2005, 1:21 PM)
If the apparatus were re-usable, and set up somewhere convenient like Eloy or Perris, are you saying you wouldn't pay a hundred bucks (or whatever) for a "landing ticket" and give it a go?
Besides the point raised by Leroy about FAA... can you imagine any DZO (much more "cool" than FAA in general) who would even let a jumper attempt this at their DZ on a regular basis? Some DZ's have a hard time with wingsuits already...
TomAiello (D 22400)
Moderator
Jun 16, 2005, 3:49 PM
Post #22 of 164
(13458 views)
Shortcut
I can think of at least one place where it would be totally legal, and you'd have enough time to enjoy the flight.
Heck, if your budget for building it is climbing to 6 million anyway, why not throw in another couple and build a 2000 ft tower with an elevator, to launch from? Call it an even 10 million to set the whole thing up? Then you could do repeated landings on one side of the tower, and, for those interested in such things, do regular parachute jumps on the other side.
Heck, if your budget for building it is climbing to 6 million anyway, why not throw in another couple and build a 2000 ft tower with an elevator, to launch from? Call it an even 10 million to set the whole thing up? Then you could do repeated landings on one side of the tower, and, for those interested in such things, do regular parachute jumps on the other side.
NOICE!
2000' tower with elevator...On one side the WS landing device. On the other side lots or trees to practice tree landing or tree slalom. On the third side a swooping pond for those who will be tarding or Mcing HP canopies. And finally on the fourth side a nice swimming pool for the round boys
STUNTS per say are just that,different set of rules and as long as the facts are presented to right people, well....anything flies!!!!how do you think movies are made?not all animation....Good luck Jeb, see you on exit point!!!
STUNTS per say are just that,different set of rules and as long as the facts are presented to right people, well....anything flies!!!!how do you think movies are made?not all animation....Good luck Jeb, see you on exit point!!!
True Perry, but I think unfortunatly the FAA doesn't change the rules, no matter how you present it, stunt or not, if it's anything other then doing "bandit" style or without being noticed by any FAA authorities, anyone jumping from an aircraft will have a parachute on......of some kind.
True Perry, but I think unfortunatly the FAA doesn't change the rules, no matter how you present it, stunt or not, if it's anything other then doing "bandit" style or without being noticed by any FAA authorities, anyone jumping from an aircraft will have a parachute on......of some kind.
Do the regs specify that the jumper actually *keep* the rig on?
If the apparatus were re-usable, and set up somewhere convenient like Eloy or Perris, are you saying you wouldn't pay a hundred bucks (or whatever) for a "landing ticket" and give it a go?
Turbine aircraft, wind tunnels, and lots of other toys cost way more, in their entirety, than I can afford individually. That doesn't mean they're way out of my league. It just means that I buy small increments (jump tickets, tunnel time, whatever).
But 6Mil gets you a big turbine or 3, a wind tunnel, and the DZ inself! The other 6 gets you one apparatus. Hopefully subsequent units go down in price!
If this was to ever happen it would definitely bring new meaning to the term groundrush
Yeh, I thought about that. For a while I was thinking it wouldn't even be that cool if it required elaborate expensive equipment, and wasn't done by virtue of the wingsuit. But then I started thinking about the visuals that the pilot would see before landing. Well, it would probably be the same thing Loic has seen while flying down mountains! And some of us see something very similar when we get near canopies that are open high!
If you want the visuals for a landing like this you could just go hangliding or microlighting.
Dont get me wrong any stunt like this is great for exposure of the sport and I wish Jeb all the best for his attempt, I just dont see this as accessible to all skydivers, however if they could build 2 2000ft towers that would be very nice ;)
TomAiello (D 22400)
Moderator
Jun 17, 2005, 6:44 AM
Post #36 of 164
(3351 views)
Shortcut
If you want the visuals for a landing like this you could just go hangliding or microlighting.
Or BASE jumping over water. Impact with slider partially deployed is not all that uncommon, and the visual is reasonably similar to high speed impact (this is from multiple personal experiences with both).
it would definitely bring new meaning to the term groundrush
In reply to:
I started thinking about the visuals that the pilot would see before landing. Well, it would probably be the same thing Loic has seen while flying down mountains!
If you really want to experience that same rush, go ground launching on a windy day with a WL of over 2:1, and try to get flying downwind close to the ground. Harness or front riser turn + loaded HP canopy + a good 25mph tailwind can put you at 70mph+ just inches off the deck. Think about Loic's forward and descent rates on that jump. Think about your experiences flying wingsuits with canopies. get the picture? Ground launching, with the right experience, gear, and conditions, is the safest and easiest access to big, fat ground rushes that can last for even minutes at a time.
I concur with Tom Green that line stretching (or even near it) into water is a total blast. Just... don't make a habit of it.
Sorry to pop in and go off topic. Back into the hills for me.
Besides the point raised by Leroy about FAA... can you imagine any DZO (much more "cool" than FAA in general) who would even let a jumper attempt this at their DZ on a regular basis? Some DZ's have a hard time with wingsuits already... The FAA only cares if Aircraft are involved. DZOs only regulate what goes on at their DZs. Meanwhile you can fly your body anywhere there is suitable "airspace" Fixed object jumpers have been avoiding both of the above and enjoying their own spaces. Question is will aircraft be needed in this attempt and who will "regulate" these apparatus?
I still don't understand all the fuss...what on earth is the point of *landing* a suit, when the most important thing is actually *flying* one?
So you land a suit without using your rig. So what? Rig, no-rig. It makes no difference to the actual flight of the suit and the flying experience, which, lets face it, is what the suit is all about.
If Jeb wants to throw millions of dollars at this, go ahead. I just wish someone would throw this amount of dough at a project that designed a suit that could stay-up for 15 minute flights or more at a time. That would be truly amazing. Simply choosing a different way of getting safely on the ground once the flight is over? Yawn!
A lot of us out there have many goals and dreams, and each of us is different. You can win by doing and achieving those goals, and by accepting the outcome of your actions and attempts with a proper prospective and good attitude. Regarding safety, Jeb has said in the past that in a standard BASE jump he always "looks" before he jumps, to make sure he's not an endangerment to anyone on the ground. Regardless of past incidents that are out of our control to change, let Jeb take up this challenge if he's the one to do so.
I don't have any sort of real inside information either, though I did ask Jeb if the system had any sort of protection for the "jewels" and he assured me that it does... so that's good to know.
As far as costs go, as with any new technology costs are normally ridiculously high at the outset. That's because there is no mass-manufacturing or marketing infrastructure in place. If the technology is viable it will slowly gain market share and prices will go down into the sane realm accordingly.
As far as costs go, as with any new technology costs are normally ridiculously high at the outset. That's because there is no mass-manufacturing or marketing infrastructure in place. If the technology is viable it will slowly gain market share and prices will go down into the sane realm accordingly.
True to a certain extent, but the first wingsuit did not cost $6mil.
I still don't understand all the fuss...what on earth is the point of *landing* a suit, when the most important thing is actually *flying* one?
I just wish someone would throw this amount of dough at a project that designed a suit that could stay-up for 15 minute flights or more at a time. That would be truly amazing.
I've toyed with the idea of attaching a jet engine to a skysurf board to see if to would increase your airtime. Anyone care to calculate the speed at which enough lift would be generated for level flight?
Those hobby engines for model aircraft can generate a lot of thrust. I guess it would have to be a BASE launch as noone will want turbines running in an aircraft.
(This post was edited by rsibbald on Jun 24, 2005, 9:31 AM)
I still don't understand all the fuss...what on earth is the point of *landing* a suit, when the most important thing is actually *flying* one?
I just wish someone would throw this amount of dough at a project that designed a suit that could stay-up for 15 minute flights or more at a time. That would be truly amazing.
I've toyed with the idea of attaching a jet engine to a skysurf board to see if to would increase your airtime. Anyone care to calculate the speed at which enough lift would be generated for level flight?
Those hobby engines for model aircraft can generate a lot of thrust. I guess it would have to be a BASE launch as noone will want turbines running in an aircraft.
Someone has already used jet engines on a rigid wing flight, can't remember who or where but it has been done.. didn't provide much lift if any if i remember correctly
Flew level in formation with the Porter for a few minutes without losing altitude. Issues with starting the engines meant they had to be started at 6000ft and idled till exit, and never liked to run over 10000ft.
Monster wings, folding and ugly as fuck... but it flew.
Someone has already used jet engines on a rigid wing flight, can't remember who or where but it has been done.. didn't provide much lift if any if i remember correctly
Someone has already used jet engines on a rigid wing flight, can't remember who or where but it has been done.. didn't provide much lift if any if i remember correctly
www.jet-man.com
(This post was edited by P-dro on Jun 26, 2005, 7:28 AM)
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. I tried to watch that video from work a few months ago, it didn't work, and I forgot about it. I just watched it now.
I'm intensely curious about what technologies would require so many millions to prototype. Guesses anyone? -Chris
A large airbag the size of a runway would probably set back at least 1 million if not more. I'm not sure one that size has ever been made, so I guess it could be considered a "prototype"
A large airbag the size of a runway would probably set back at least 1 million if not more. I'm not sure one that size has ever been made, so I guess it could be considered a "prototype"
i think landing on something the size of a runway still might be a little too small to allow for errors. i'm thinking it would be bigger than this.
i also think he said it was 4 pieces of technology. airbag is only 1, what would the other 3 be?
I think he's developing a winged surface, that can be attached to the jumper witn lines. But neatly packed and stowed away on the back, so it doesn't temper with wingsuit-flight. Uppon closing in on the ground, the extra winged surface wil emerge from the backpack, and will give the wingsuiter the extra lift and flair needed to land!
Why hasn't anyone thought of this before...!!!
TomAiello (D 22400)
Moderator
Jun 27, 2005, 2:30 PM
Post #67 of 164
(3597 views)
Shortcut
I think he's developing a winged surface, that can be attached to the jumper witn lines. But neatly packed and stowed away on the back, so it doesn't temper with wingsuit-flight. Uppon closing in on the ground, the extra winged surface wil emerge from the backpack, and will give the wingsuiter the extra lift and flair needed to land!
Why hasn't anyone thought of this before...!!!
There is a discussion of such a system on the Flybirdman forums.
Land the wingsuit at a water park on one of those slides that have a really steel incline.. the one where the girls all get wedgies at the bottom.. the water parks are already there so it cant cost that much to rent the slide for a day or two...
maybe 5k at the most... I gotta think low budget cause thats all the budget i got.
good luck to you JEB and I cant wait to read/see the feat of landing sans parachute Will you be wearing one during the attempt... "just in case"?????
I know knew a guy who landed a sheet of corrugated iron from 4 stories.TRUE He was lucky he was a skydiver cause he rode it the whole way down without letting go. The pile of sand helped a little as well. There's a few clues here for landing a wing-suit. Another of my friends took a nice long fall onto his back pushing away equipment that was falling with him. Winded was all. We're gonna need lots of padding , ligament cream handy and some very talented professionals to lift us all out of the mythological belief that we can't land with wings on our arms..........without hurting ourselves. Too fast you say...seen a swoop contest lately ..not exactly slow. Flat-earthers and star gazers.... with santa's little helpers very busy....perhaps next Xmas.... oh and why is it a big secret? is there a huge dollar prise to the first lander.? Cue rich kid putting up a mil or two ....just to see it happen. Trail of bodies? Take care on the road there's car comin' da other way.
Modern wingsuits do not have brakes. You can only change the angle of attack of the whole arm and leg wing -- analogous to rear riser input -- but you cannot deflect a part of the wing to slow down and increase lift. Thus, poor flaring capabilities of modern wingsuits make them unlandable. Imagine Luigi landing his VX39 on rear risers, without brakes. Ouch! Now imagine landing VX10 (area equal to wingsuit) on rear risers. Quarter the area, double the speed, quadruple the kinetic energy. Quattro ouch!!!!
Jeb did his homework. Unlike most people here making macho impressions by speed typing in front of their computers, Jeb did real experiments flying his wingsuit side-by-side with Luigi on his VX39. Jeb knows his stuff. If he says "This can be done", he will do it. Safely.
I have a few technical ideas and did some calculations to ascertain that this is possible. I don't have money and sponsors to build the stuff needed, and don't have experience necessary. But I do "find it funny how everybody thinks this is so impossible", as Jeb himself writes above.
One key piece of technology could be a flare-able wingsuit, with some means of deflecting the tail of the wings to flare and slow down. Similar to airplanes and canopies.
Another key piece of technology could be a huge pond with powerfull air compressors "bubble-izing" water into a homogenious foam. Air makes water compressible, a substance with density between that of air and water. Several feet layer of bubbled water will help flyer to slow down without hitting him hard. Besides, the foam can be set in motion towards the flyer by pumps, reducing his speed relative to ground. As for retrieving the jumper from water -- as long as he doesn't die on landing, who cares about him drowning after?
Hitting water at ~60mph tangentially is nothing new to water skiers and swoopers. I believe flare-able wingsuit can be brought to <60mph horizontal and zero or almost zero vertical speed. Hook turn in a wingsuit, anyone?
Or it could be done completely different, perhaps using some kind of very light mesh suspended from a bridge on bungee cords. Jeb does have an experience flying his wingsuit under the bridges.
When parachutes were round, who could have imagined that there will be times when people will be swooping ground or water at 70mph with a fraction of an inch precision and land safely?... Wingsuit can be made similar to ram air canopy in all aspects -- swoopable and landable. There are many ways -- other than breaking bones -- to safely dissipate the kinetic energy.
As Jeb said and Einstein repeated, "great spirits often encounter heavy opposition from mediocre minds." Think outside the box.
(This post was edited by veter_ on Aug 8, 2005, 12:42 PM)
Hitting the ground with a high forward speed...I don't know what all the hoopla is about..
Last night, while driving home from a demo-jump, I got hit by a car on the highway (not my mistake) I got thrown off my motorcycle and hit the asfalt at 120 km/h.
Both me and my motorcycle made a 80 meter slide. And ofcource I wasn't wearing protective clothing (only a leather jacket) My motorcycle was totaly wrecked...and I have 2 small scratches on my knees..and no other injuries at all..(I started rolling as soon as I hit asphalt)
So if everyone is worried about doing a 120 km/h belly-slide...it can be done...(but you don't want to know what my clothes looked like...it would probably cost you a wingsuit)
But anyways...sliding to a stop...it can be done :P
So if everyone is worried about doing a 120 km/h belly-slide...it can be done...(but you don't want to know what my clothes looked like...it would probably cost you a wingsuit)
But anyways...sliding to a stop...it can be done :P
Some friends and I once bougth a large surface of plastic where we put a lot of soap and water on. After taking a run you could slide for very long and would come to a nice stop. Sure would be more agreable to land, would save your wingsuit (hell, it would be cleaned at the same time ) and would sure look fun like hell
In reply to:
And ofcource I wasn't wearing protective clothing (only a leather jacket)
The closest I've seen anybody to landing a wingsuit is Loic's mountain swoop. He actually achieved zero relative velocity in distance between him and the sloping ground (ski slope surface), only a few feet above the actual ski slope! http://www.skydivingmovies.com/...tion=file&id=352
Coincidentially, it has been reported that people have broken the 150mph barrier on downhill skiis before, and thus this is within wingsuit flight speeds.
Why not test the following instead, in a scientific manner:
Crazy ideas (probably pie in the sky)
1. (air test) Test aerodynamics of wingsuit flying with downhill skiis (but cutaway the skiis before deploying parachute). Both horizontal windtunnel and telemetry measuring in the air. Figure out if wingsuit remains controllable and the angle of skiis can still safely be adjusted with feet while flying wingsuit. May need custom designed skiis and boots. Experiment with different ski designs that does not interfere much with wingsuit flight (or even actually helps a bit with the flight). Skiis would be pointed upwards towards the face, much like a ski jumper. Figure out ideal angle of skiis and angle of wingsuit, and whether it is easy for skiier's feet to adjust the angle safely. Do several test jumps and a safe ski cutaway mechanism (non-landing tests)? And do computer simulations to verify ground-effect issues between ground and a low-flying wingsuit flyer wearing skiis.
2. (ground-only test) Test a really high speed ski run for stability on skiis. Pick the speeds up, 60mph, 80mph, 100mph on the downhill skiis.
3. (ground-only test) Pratice ski jumping. This will hone skills for safely setting down skiis after a freefall. Start wearing a wingsuit during olympic-style ski jumps. This further hone the skill of wingsuit control while skiing. Also tests whether wingsuit actually is pratical during skiing.
4. (ground-only) Research high speed wipeouts, and other safety considerations. How thick and thin the soft snow layer needs to be. Ideal landing angles that's within the abilities of the wingsuit flyer wearing skiis, as tested in earlier aerodynamic tests. Artifical snow vs natural snow, for ideal landing surface.
5. If all variables are good, rehearse the wingsuit landing using skiis at higher altitude and use high precision GPS to measure trajectory.
6. If all is good, attempt the actual wingsuit landing using skiis.
A high speed wipeout would be extremely dangerous, but people have survived 80+ mph wipeouts. Someone should do research whether this is safer than that proposed custom 5 million dollar structure that is not nearly as big as a well-selected ski slope?
Of course, all these may be crazy ideas, but I'm not sure anyone has ever done aerodynamic wingsuit-skiis testing at altitude to figure out whether or not it's still pratical?
Don't believe it's possible -- see this video and re-read this post again. I'm now beginning to think, maybe, just maybe... It's outlandish, indeed... But so is this video!
(This post was edited by mdrejhon on Oct 21, 2005, 11:03 AM)
My crazy idea went a little like this: Basically a tailhook contraption like Navy planes use to land on a carrier, except adapted to a bungee. Horizontal flexible cable layed out, The hook/catch mechanism on the flyer's feet. All he's gotta do it hook the catch mechanism on the cable, and it's a bungee jump from there on out. So this would be setup at regular bungee sites of course. It would be easy to test since the jumper can still try it out with a rig, in case he misses the cable on the flyby.
My crazy idea went a little like this: Basically a tailhook contraption like Navy planes use to land on a carrier, except adapted to a bungee. Horizontal flexible cable layed out, The hook/catch mechanism on the flyer's feet. All he's gotta do it hook the catch mechanism on the cable, and it's a bungee jump from there on out. So this would be setup at regular bungee sites of course. It would be easy to test since the jumper can still try it out with a rig, in case he misses the cable on the flyby.
Jarno, glad your ok, stay in one piece till I can fly your wings off, and as for speculation....Let jeb do his thing, he is not crazy, well educated and knows risk assesment!!! He knows whats up, let the man work on his project
*snip* See http://www.leisuresportsphoto.com- the people who do the Bridge Day photos every year - in the 9 to 10 am landings section, page 5 of 7 *snip*
Seeing those photos, and how much (little) canopy is overhead during his landing, I would say this is about as close as you can come to landing a wingsuit, and living to talk about it...
*snip* See http://www.leisuresportsphoto.com- the people who do the Bridge Day photos every year - in the 9 to 10 am landings section, page 5 of 7 *snip*
Seeing those photos, and how much (little) canopy is overhead during his landing, I would say this is about as close as you can come to landing a wingsuit, and living to talk about it...
Not true. From Yuri (outrager):
"The ultimate wingsuit low pull award belongs to Den. He nearly landed a wingsuit a couple of years ago, impacting at line stretch with his slider still stowed in a C-line rubberband."
Ok, so let's say that your wrong. And you don't have to tell anyones friends "I told you so." What if, in turn, Jeb gets to tell you "I told you so." What if someone with "alot less wingsuit experience" does something that you can't or won't try to do? Will he get any credit then??? Damn, I ask a simple question, to which I still haven't gotten an answer for- and in turn I get a thread that is more suited for Speakers Corner. I understand that some people don't care- but there are those of us out there that are interested, that do want to see it happen. So I guess all you naysayers out there can take that anyway you like it. Mike
What if...? Try: What if Dwain had lived? What if Patrick had lived? What if we were all born with wings?
If you want to know the general gist, search through the thread and find the 1000 other times this has been discussed.
Read about the jumpers wearing wingsuits who've hit with nothing out and survived. Read about Dwain's notorious last jump. Read about Jeb's cost estimate (last check it was several million, but we haven't caught up with Jeb since Swz).
And then maybe you'll understand why most of us are truly keen to see it happen, we're just sick of hearing people talk about seeing it happen.
(This post was edited by Jasmin on Oct 28, 2006, 4:53 AM)
"The ultimate wingsuit low pull award belongs to Den. He nearly landed a wingsuit a couple of years ago, impacting at line stretch with his slider still stowed in a C-line rubberband." That was over the HARD LAND, not water.
True. Denis smacked in at Magland with little more than a pilot chute out. The ambulance crew purportedly refused to take him to hospital.
I should probably add (as I do every time we talk about the rules and the reason denis has a titanium back) that the general consensus (and Dwain's infamous rule) was that "It doesn't count unless you can walk away from it."
(This post was edited by Jasmin on Oct 28, 2006, 4:51 AM)
go to the incidents forum and read the thread about the CRW injury (it was me).
I landed with my main and reserve wrapped around each other. There was a third canopy partialy inflated. I spun and hit the ground hard, but am in good shape now all considering.
I wouldn't even think of trying it. The guy at bridge day is lucky...as I am. If anyone wants to think about trying, please fly out and visit me for a little. Hopefully I can talk some sense in to you
I see he switched from the S3/S4 he has been flying to a stealth. Does seem a better wingsuit for what he intends to do.
Dont know why he'd want to land a wingsuit at 'over a 100 miles per hour' as he quotes. Seems like the whole idea is to slow it down soo much you can land and stand it up? 100 mph downward doesnt sound survive-able. And if its 100 mph forward, that doesnt sound like something you'd stand up on landing
Dont know about you, but the slip&slide project doesnt sound like landing a wingsuit to me? Sure it be cool as f*ck, and Id be watching this stuff after/if he'd succeed.
But the wingsuit isnt even needed, and you could technicaly do it in normal freefall if you just get the aim right.
Im sure it atrackts lots of sponsor-money and more media attention. And if thats the goal..yea..I think he can do it too...
As a side note, the ramp design shown in the vid is so tall, that he has ample time to steer to the side, pull and land if he misses his trajectory (he won't be wearing a skydiving rig). And then go try again. I don't believe he wants to die doing this, and I think its really fucking morbid what people say about his endeavours.
Appreciate the mans effort, regardless of what you think of him as a person/jumper. And shouting "just fucking do it already" from the back row is silly. If the plan is not finished, would you?
I don't think it'll happen anytime soon but it will be done. Possibly someone will beat him to it.
oh Man, I love your feeling for important stuff. We have to instruct this group of serious sportspeople for free . . . for sure I promise the next WoM i will organise some like this ladies
yea I know...thats why I had a questionmark behind it as in Dude...you do know that an An2 is a bi-plane..righ?
We're in the part of the world where we know the difference between hercules airplanes, An-2s and jetplanes because we get to jump them regularly...unlike those twin otter/skyvan pussies from the USA
We're in the part of the world where we know the difference between hercules airplanes, An-2s and jetplanes .unlike those twin otter/skyvan pussies from the USA
To bad you are not part of the world that knows the difference between a running gag about aircraft posts and a ridiculous question.......dork!
It's already everywhere on the web. But seeing how the canopy didnt do ANYTHING to decelerate or even stand-up the jumper, I think Chris upstaged James Boole by a large margin, and for sure beat Jeb to the punch. No multi-milion dollar slip and slide needed either...
I wonder if it would have been better for him to to go for max flight instead of the PC
In the pictures he pitched and then reached for his risers ... Flair (or at least fly it out)! You'll lose less altitude and either maintain or reduce speed.
PS: This opinion was made from the comfort of a keyboard by an unqualified individual.
If the time difference between the pictures is constant, it does not look like a pc hesitiation but as if he lost a lot of time finding the pc or just flying with the hand on the pc and not pulling... But this is just a guess.
For some reason it has not been publicised BUT a guy has already done "better" - he did not deploy and survived. He flew into the tree line and walked away with a minor stomach injury. Heal fast Christopher.
(This post was edited by unclecharlie95 on Oct 18, 2011, 5:16 PM)
No multi-milion dollar slip and slide needed either...
Just water? Have you jump to the water from a boat? Easy money.....
Have you jump to the water from a boat going by 20+ knots? You got a nice chance to break your neck and drown.
Mr Negative. It was a comment on that video...
He DID survive. He DID not need a mutli million dollar landing slide. He only needed water. Yea it probably hurt like hell. But he didnt dorwn, and he didnt break a neck. Though water is hard, its for sure not like concrete. I dont think a concrete slam like that would have been survivable..
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Oct 19, 2011, 6:56 AM
Post #131 of 164
(2288 views)
Shortcut
For some reason it has not been publicised BUT a guy has already done "better" - he did not deploy and survived. He flew into the tree line and walked away with a minor stomach injury. Heal fast Christopher.
Late throw. Nothing else. Looks like he wanted to get flying first.
Regardless, a late throw or a partial mal is not, and should not be compared with, a deliberately planned attempt to land a WS without using a parachute.
I watched this from the bridge all the way to impact. The canopy reached lone stretch and had started to inflate, but seriously, only just.
He made a fair old noise as he hit the water and it took them a long time to fish him out. Unfortunately his friends and family watched it from the landing area.
From the bridge it looked like nothing more than a really late, then lazy throw. He barely got any distance in the WS, trackers did better.
As I understand it, he has severed his spinal cord, shattered his pelvis and collapsed both lungs.
So, technically not a Wingsuit landing, and even if it was, the guys never going to walk again by all accounts.
Jesus, that's terrible. What kind of WS BASE experience did he have? Exit actually looked good, but took awhile to get going and probably got sucked in by the water. Shame.
Anyone can land and get broken :) The winner is the one that lands and doesn't get broken :) The goal is not to land, the goal is to land and then get up and do it again :) So even if a person lands and only femurs them self still not the landing I am trying to do :)
The guy that went into the trees was in the hospital for quite some time so the injuries were not that minor :) Also the trees deployed his parachute and he actually landed under a parachute even though he was unconscious as it happened :)
Just so you know, even if someone lands a snow slope uninjured it still will not change what i am doing :) My goal is not to land out in the middle of no where or even to be first. My goal is to land in the middle of a major city :) So if someone goes and lands a snow slope it will only help me in my cause :) So guys get going, I know one of you will go for it and pull it off one of these days :)
I am pretty sure Dean is working on this and I have no doubt he will pull it off :) But again, my goals are a bit different :)
We have everything in place except for financing. Financing plus risk seems to be the biggest hurdle for us. But I am sure we will figure out how to over come it very soon :) The chinese cave fly through was very helpful :) the landing won't happen soon but it will happen :) Just going to take time, but I am in no rush to be honest :)
Anyone who thinks they can make it happen faster or better I say go for it :)
I completelt forgot I started this thread (6 years ago!!! ). Glad to hear that you are still working toward your goal Jeb. I can't wait to see it when it happens.
It took 6 years of working, but I finally hit my goal!!! I finally got under the 250 lb mark and ca finally go do my first tandem!!! Now all I need is $250 and ext spring to roll around!!!
We have everything in place except for financing. Financing plus risk seems to be the biggest hurdle for us. But I am sure we will figure out how to over come it very soon :) The chinese cave fly through was very helpful :) the landing won't happen soon but it will happen :) Just going to take time, but I am in no rush to be honest :)
Anyone who thinks they can make it happen faster or better I say go for it :)
Jeb
Nice! Didn't know Jeb posted on dropzone. Thanks for the inspiration!
in reply to "The chinese cave fly through was very helpful :) the landing won't happen soon but it will happen :) Just going to take time, but I am in no rush to be honest :) " .....................................................,
Hi Jeb, wondering if its possible to test your idea on a smaller test rig than your full size design. It would cost less and you might then have a show ride contraption to market . Showride manufacturers might even be interested in working with you to develope a machine that simulates a wingsuit landing ... at the carnival...for whuffos. praps a nice blowy bungie assist wingsuit landing trainer could result.
Didn't the guy on Bridge Day "land" his wingsuit? T'was neither cool nor pretty, but he came in contact with the ground without opened parachute (he did try to open one tho) and is still alive AFAIK.
You don't need a fancy lubed slide to do this, just go for it!!
Didn't the guy on Bridge Day "land" his wingsuit? T'was neither cool nor pretty, but he came in contact with the ground without opened parachute (he did try to open one tho) and is still alive AFAIK.
You don't need a fancy lubed slide to do this, just go for it!!
Depends how you define landing without a parachute.
Well, there are 1.3 billion people in China alone, and while I won't claim to know what even one of them was doing when this aired, it seems somewhat improbable that 1 out of every 3 of them would be watching it. Possible though, I guess. How much of the supposed 500M was outside of China?
Chinese RedBull were the ones tracking the numbers :) They were hoping for maybe 100 million if they were lucky. When the numbers came back at over 500 million they were quite shocked. Non of us could have imagined it would go so huge :) An unknown athlete doing a relatively unknown sport :)
CCTV airs in more places then just china by the way :) It covers most of Asia and you can even see it in the USA if you have satellite TV :) Plus it also aired live on BBC :) Along with 9 other networks :)
I have zero idea how they track this stuff. I only repeat what I am told by the powers that be. It could have been 3 people for all I know :)
Well, there are 1.3 billion people in China alone, and while I won't claim to know what even one of them was doing when this aired, it seems somewhat improbable that 1 out of every 3 of them would be watching it. Possible though, I guess. How much of the supposed 500M was outside of China?
Even if using the Gross Reach and GRP methods, it doesn't wash. It's probable that webpages are counting re-hits and loops, which is false feedback.
FIFA was inflating. Kinda like the Olympics in Torino initially claiming 2B viewers where the verifiable was 87m (opening ceremonies).
It's in marketing's best interest to claim the most inflated numbers they can possibly find (and good for our discipline too, IMO).
100m viewers worldwide? Easily accepted. And exceptionally impressive.
+ 1 People just need to be clear on exactly what it is that is being counted. The data is too easy to screw up and manipulate. Is it possible some of this is based on the Chinese government's assertions about viewership for CCTV?
I have never been sponsored by Go Fast :) I did a few projects with Luigi who was sponsored by Go Fast :) But even if that were not the case you are right, Chinese RedBull doesn't give a shit who i was sponsored by in the past :)
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Nov 20, 2011, 1:56 PM
Post #160 of 164
(848 views)
Shortcut
+ 1 People just need to be clear on exactly what it is that is being counted. The data is too easy to screw up and manipulate. Is it possible some of this is based on the Chinese government's assertions about viewership for CCTV?
It's actually quite likely. It allows them to claim higher valuations for PVT and charge accordingly. China uses diary as a big part of their measurement (according to NAB) vs people-meters (costly) and so the data may be quite easily faked.
The following is an excerpt from Roland Soong The Statistical Reliability of People Meter Ratings. Journal of Advertising Research, February/March, p.51-56. To counterbalance the claim of the television program host, the reporter interviewed a Mr. Hu at CCTV-SOFRES. Here is the translation:
According to him, the calculation of the rating is not based upon "the number of viewers divided by the total number of survey respondents."
First of all, the company will select 300 representative households by considering sex, education, family composition and other factors. Next, in order to reduce the effect of fatigue from participation in the survey, the company will replace 2% of the households in the sample. Furthermore, the calculation for a time period is based on the minute as the basic time unit. Thus, the number of viewing minutes is added up for all persons and divided by "total number of persons in the sample multipled by the total number of minutes in the time period" and the result is the rating for the television program.
Why does the sample consist of 300 households? According to Mr. Hu, "Based upon international standards, 1,067 sample persons is the point of balance between reliable numbers and research value. This number is the number of persons in 300 households in the case of China."
"From a sample of 1,067, we can achieve the international standard of being able to achieve an error tolerance of plus or minus under 3% at the 95% confidence level. If we increase the sample to 1,000 households, the costs will increase geometrically but the increase in reliability and the reduction in sampling error will be quite limited," said Mr. Hu."
Curious that they don't take into account the poverty levels of the majority of the country. India was busted a few years ago for something similar.
At the end of the day...the only people that should give a shit is the CCTV marketing and sales department. Any intelligent person knows that 500M is a specious claim and somewhat clouds the overall achievement. Hundreds of millions of people saw a wingsuit fly through a hole in a mountain, and no matter how you slice it, it's a pretty impressive achievement whether one does or doesn't understand the logistics involved.
Interesting, thanks. Recently someone told me about a PR company saying their viewership figures seemed a bit high - they were higher than the total population of the country the data was for.
I have never been sponsored by Go Fast :) I did a few projects with Luigi who was sponsored by Go Fast :) But even if that were not the case you are right, Chinese RedBull doesn't give a shit who i was sponsored by in the past :)
you know, you are quite quite an icon in the sport; and you do your own thing. i admire that a lot! doesnt matter how stupid or redundant i think the stunts you do are. somehow you manage to grab the attention of the media and the worst whuffos.
props to you and i lift my hat in your general direction!
!!! 
Where are we if we don't try! 
chris_landing.jpg
