Forums: Dropzone.com: Suggestions and Feedback:
Atmonauti

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Vins

Mar 5, 2008, 1:40 AM
Post #51 of 102 (1571 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LouDiamond] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

In reply to:
Do I really have to explain this to you? It's called a lie, a falsehood, an untrue statement, a deception and in plain English.... bullshit, albeit with a sugar coating. From the grossly erroneous aerodynamics, to the nonsensical use of words and outright tripe. The old saying "you can sugar coat a turd but it's still a turd" is very applicable to what you have presented in this and the other thread. I think the majority of people see this in the same light and see it for what it is when presented in this manner. However, much like dealing with a brain washed person or a mentally ill person, I am certain that what ever proof is presented to you that contridicts your statements about ATMO will fall on deaf ears. What next, if you do ATMO you can fly relative and dock with the space shuttle? Crazy


I'm sorry for my comprehension of english. But one thing I have undertood, you are impolite.

You don't need to be impolite to persuade someone about your ideas.
Your ideas only should persuade us, but you don't seem to be able because your topics are full of bad words, and therefore your words are full of nothing.

I partecipate in many forums and I've never seen a moderator that needs to be moderate.
I think as moderator you have failed.
Please leave your title and give it who is able to do this job.

Or is your language considered as "normal" in your country?
It depends on my comprehention?


Premier LouDiamond  (D 25931)
Moderator
Mar 5, 2008, 5:35 AM
Post #52 of 102 (1552 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Vins] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Vins, because I am a moderator does not mean I cannot express myself. As long as I abide by the same rules I enforce I am free to post just as you or anyone else is. My intent is not to be impolite but the only reason this thread has gone on this long is because I ( and others) have attempted to point out the inaccuracies of your and marco's statements.

When confronted with those gross inaccuracies you both either ignored them or changed the subject by saying that "ATMO is fun". So I removed the sugar coating and broke it down to the simplest level in hopes perhaps you both would understand what people have been trying to tell you. My intent isn't to be impolite, it is to hopefully put what others have stopped trying to tell you into words that you both understand. Because based on both of your responses, you either still don't or won't acknowledge that there are some glaring issues with the statements that have been made.

Do you understand what I have just explained to you?


mciocca  (C License)

Mar 5, 2008, 7:43 AM
Post #53 of 102 (1545 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Hiya Dave,

You have some good points going.

One of them is the atmo in breakoff vs track. Its becoming more widely used as a means to increase the time available in breakoff, and it really works well.

There have been many studies done by independents and Marco Tiezzi etc which added substance to the claims, and Im sure plans are in place to develop these statements in a closely controlled and studied manner in the near future.

Until then, atmo does offer a new alternative to traditional freefall, and it would be great for more skydivers to give it a well deserved go, with some high level group coaching and instructionals etc.

Take it from me, it really does amaze when done well....


mciocca  (C License)

Mar 5, 2008, 7:53 AM
Post #54 of 102 (1542 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DJL] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Here are a couple more hybrid Atmo Wingsuit pics...

Its quite an amazing site, even if, and i dont mind repeating this, the wingsuiter isnt maxing it...

It must be said though that the wings are pretty well inflated.Smile

I think these pics arent there to prove that Atmo is throwing out some magic, rather, I think it shows just how incredible our sport has become and how it is evolving, and just how amazing the human body really is.
Attachments: atmo-wing-1.JPG (51.4 KB)
  atmo-wing-2.JPG (59.8 KB)
  atmo-wing-5.JPG (56.7 KB)


mciocca  (C License)

Mar 5, 2008, 8:06 AM
Post #55 of 102 (1537 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LouDiamond] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Quote:
you either still don't or won't acknowledge that there are some glaring issues with the statements that have been made.

In reply to:
Lou, no one doubt that with any new development, whether it be scientific, automotive, product orientated that issues may or may not be present.

To completely overlook all of the positive attributes of any new development would mean progress stops. If all of human kind were like you we'd still be in the dark ages.

Why dont we rather work together in creating a more amicable forum, one where real ideas can be exchanged, where students can access iformation, and where debates are carried out with the greater good of the sport in mind and not about finding the alpha male. We can do that in other ways, on the ground, in the sky.. you know what i mean.

Quote:
broke it down to the simplest level in hopes perhaps you both would understand what people have been trying to tell you
With reference to your use of foul language and insult, thats not gonna do any good, because i cant understand fecal. You speak it well though.

Tongue


SimonBones  (D 28573)

Mar 5, 2008, 8:47 AM
Post #56 of 102 (1517 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mciocca] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

This whole argument of whether or not atmonauti does or does not create lift or if tracking does or does not create lift I think is irrelevent as to whether or not atmonauti deserves its own discipline section.

Don't get me wrong, I like atmonauti. It's fun. It's a shame that it is less popular here in the states. I have had fun on atmonauti dives from Spain to Brazil in my travels.

But when I get out of the plane to do some freeflying, atmonauti angles can just as easily be incorporated into the dive as sitflying, headowning, and tracking. I can say to someone, let's go do some atmonauti, then get out of the plane and do strictly that. I can also say let's get out and do some sitflying, then do exactly that. That does not mean that sitflying should have its own section in the forums as its own discipline.

The yes lift no lift arfument probably belongs best in the freeflying forum or the general skydiving discussions. I followed it for a while in freeflying, but that snide remarks and personal attacks were not only annoying, but discrediting for your arguments.

-Simon


Premier LouDiamond  (D 25931)
Moderator
Mar 5, 2008, 8:49 AM
Post #57 of 102 (1516 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mciocca] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Marco, you apparently don't get it or refuse to admit what has been pointed out to you. No one has disputed that Atmo is fun to do or that you can do some cool things in a group or that learning it in a safe way is important. Everyone gets that relatively quickly from the onset.

What you will not address directly is what everyone has been trying to point out to you. Your refusal to address those issues is your greatest detriment and why you are catching flak. I do not know any other way to make it obvious to you as you have not grasped it when articulated in less direct a manner or when explained in a very direct manner. Until you address those issues that have been pointed out in this and the other thread no one is going to take you or this topic seriously.

There is no use to continue with this line of conversation as it is circular.You either get this or you don't. For some the truth is hard to accept. Until you actually listen to what people are telling you and impliment those changes you are destined to continue spinning your wheels.


DJL  (C License)

Mar 5, 2008, 9:21 AM
Post #58 of 102 (1508 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mciocca] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

In reply to:
Here are a couple more hybrid Atmo Wingsuit pics...

Its quite an amazing site, even if, and i dont mind repeating this, the wingsuiter isnt maxing it...

It must be said though that the wings are pretty well inflated.Smile

I think these pics arent there to prove that Atmo is throwing out some magic, rather, I think it shows just how incredible our sport has become and how it is evolving, and just how amazing the human body really is.

Pretty cool shots, but they all show someone riding on top of the wingsuiter. Again, looks like a lot of fun but they're not flying "with" the wingsuiter.


marcoT

Mar 5, 2008, 10:49 AM
Post #59 of 102 (1495 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LouDiamond] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Lou Diamond

1) You say :
Surely you are jesting with that statment ...right? You do know that Atmonauti was a move used in freestyle competition for years before someone thought it would be cool to re-invent the wheel?

Vins answer :
Yes, I know that Atmonauti was a move used in freestyle competition as I know that it was happend after years that Marco Tiezzi and Gigliola Borgnis was presented the Atmo-Freestyle at Eloy in the FreeFly Festival on 2000, technique colled Atmonauti by themselfs at that time. They won a prize by the film edited by Tiezzi that showed a "new" stuff that flown in angle, never seen before, and in a Freestyle competition.

Who have RE-INVENT what ?
Make sentence and ridicolize people , without know very well the fact , is definitely not a good start for you.

2) You say :
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is any different from freeflying when you apply the definition of free flying

To comment this affirmation is necessary to make a quick history (that I lived personally) of the fact . This is very clear documented in the historic documents of that time as books, skydiving magazine , VHS commercialized video tapes , official FAI videotapes of competitions , official FAI text documents describing the disciplines … we have pretty much stuff of that periods to prove this story ! .

Which definition are you talking about , the first one of the beginning , or the second one that came out years after 2000 ?
Yes because in that time the original definition of the “free fly” , came from his inventor with the famous “Olav Position” , was only VERTICAL STUFF : full of prove of this in all the dates magazine , articles , videos (cronicle 1 , 2 ,3 ) , pictures , competitions , etc.
I talk from 95 , when I start jump , to 2000 : in this period was existing the free-fly (most vertical head down with the first jumps in groups in head down , and 3 way team perform head down and head up acrobatic vertical manoeuvre ).
In the meantime there was already existing the FREE STYLE from few years before the free fly , which was already the real first free-fall discipline , different respect rw and style , performing acrobatic three-dimensional manoeuvres in different body position , in all the slow vertical speed (more flat) , and in all the other vertical highest speed body position as stand-up , daffy , straddle etc. , excluding the head down position (introduce by Olav later)
In the last years of the 90’ was arriving from USA the first group tracking jumps performed by the free flyer , and was at 100% tracking with the rabbit on the back watching the other follow him on the belly from behind ! The same tracking system known from years around all over the world , and that really strange we do not see too much anymore today . Very strange transformation !
So in practice for at least 5 years from 95 to 2000 , during the period of the big “bum” of Free Fly and its big diffusion , all the biggest world freeflyers at the top of their own fly-level , they ware making the tracking group jumps with the system up described. (… many photos on magazines/videos to prove this)

So before that the definition of free fly becomes “everything” , when you were going tp the boarding area to divide the exit order of the groups, you knew very well what kind of typology of jump were : rw , freestyle , freefly/flocking , tracking.

Well , the true is that ONLY after we present Atmonauti for the first time in 2000 , people have started to modify the traditional way of tracking , apply more and more the atmonauti technique . And in contemporaney is born the new definitions of FAI about “diagonal orientation” including the new atmonauti one , and in this moment is also start to change the definition of “free fly” from vertical stuff , to “Free Fly is EVERYTHING , including what you still have to imagine“ . Personally I think this affirmation is absurd ! Following this statement you can say that free fly includes also rw , sky surf , free style , etc. … Your statement say that atmonauti is not a new discipline but is just part of free fly , so , using the same way of think , you can also say that free fly is not a new discipline but is just part of the Free Style which arrived earlier. At last , personally I think that is also a good way to stop evolution , saying that if something new will be discover , it will be collocate in the “freefly box” any way .

Everybody is free to see the things as he preferred , but if we want make a serious analysis of the historic facts , is pretty absurd to think to convince people with just some talking and without post nothing about the prove of the affirmation . For the moment , in years now that this discussion go forward ( check some thread in this site ) , the total absence of even ONE of this prove was never posted from NOBODY is the perfect confirm of what we are saying !
…. 5 minutes of work are enough for go to search in old magazine and videos the part of the existing freefly that we have just “labelled” (as someone affirm) …. will be enough to close definitely the discussion , avoiding hundred and hundred of post where people ask to prove his affirmation , change every time argument …. Sometime talking about the not possible lift , sometime ridicules the sketch , sometime just with offence . So pleas now post the PROVE OF YOUR AFFIRMATION .
People are not so slow to understand where is the true .




3) Atmonauti have his own big difference related to this other existing disciplines , for which is necessary introduce new concepts and new safety rules . And that’s why Marco and Vins and all of us are transmit from years all the know how of this argument including the VERY IMPORTANT safety rules about directions and Navigations that you can read in the post n. 7 of this thread …

Sincerely we were waiting for a “thanks” for this ….. Not really a so heavy attack and ridicolization (including from the moderator of the tread) ….. Here just some example :

... I have mine, I say your full of crap!
.... made up by some euro trash to ...
.... cooking up witch doctor aerodynamics, ignoring basic physics and trying
to give it a different name ...
.........Welcome to the stupid club......
… and in plain English.... bullshit, albeit with a sugar coating….

I repeat the Marco Ciocca invite to open a thread titled “lets trash atmonauti” , where I’m sure the upwright example they will found a better collocation.



4) About the lift , here we go with other attack and put in ridiculous our ideas…. There are many example , but I want to ask you only one thing now : if lift does not exist with the atmoanuti technique , can you tell me in which way is possible that the vertical speed when I do the atmo-tandem with out drogue , is around 180 km/h ( 110 miles/h ) ?

Any way , the argument is still open …. There is a thread in the freefly section call “atmo question” where with the usual sympathies , someone attack strongly ridicolizing atmo again and affirm that human lift IS IMPOSSIBLE …. After days the same people have start to admit lift but in a minimum percentage …. Ummm something is changing …. Waiting the next step …

I say again that all you guys so heavy against atmonauti and against the people that like it and promote it , you are writing very well your name in the history of who have try to slow down this EVOLUTION PROCESS of REAL HUMAN FLIGHT.
Congratulation to pass in the history !



5) you say :
…..we do similar things in wingsuiting

You have to know that the discipline that you hate so much , atmonauti , have set up years before wing suit , manoeuvre and rules , that now are integrally adopted by the wing-suit movement and competition .
Just talk about this last x.mass boogie in South Africa with Alexandro Lopez Arce told me to have take lot of movement and ideas from the atmonauti web site ( Contest ARW AtmonautiRelativeWork in 2 and 4 way ) , including the adopting of the new atmonauti system for the working time , not anymore fixed in a certain amount of seconds , but related to the altitude ! Check it out .
We are really happy that lot of the atmonauti technique and concepts , have many time positively influenced other discipline.


5) you say :
Did you honestly expect no one to point out the gross inaccuracies of your statements and simply go along with statements that contradict basic aerodynamics on a forum where pilots and skydivers post

Well , I read back all your post and a part a lot of bad word and negative sentence against atmoanuti , I have not found any kind of serious technique objection related the atmonauti statement !
In effect you quote people make technical objection as for example :

“… That angle is commonly known as "Angle Of Attack". Every wing requires an AOA greater than zero in order to create lift. I have a hard time believing that just by announcing "I'm doing Atmonauti" as I leave the plane, I can violate the laws of physics and create lift with an AOA of zero.”

Well , a part the usual sympatic attitude to ridicolize atmonauti , this statement A0A=0 lift , is just FALSE !!!! So if the critique come from this type of statement , I just tell you please do not continue to offend us , and give this false information to peoples …. If you hate atmonauti , is not a good reason to hate aerodynamics too.

Other serious technique objection ?
Be serious , stay on topic , and tell me what are the “statements that contradict basic aerodynamics” a part the wrong one in YOUR SIDE just up described .

Lets summarize the topic point of this long post :
1) post the freefly angled stuff before 2000 , that we have just labelled .
2) who want permanently stay off topic and continue in going forward with the offence , please open a new thread and call it “lets trash atmonauti”
3) if lift do not exist in atmo , in which way is possible that the vertical speed when I do the atmo-tandem with out drogue , is around 180 km/h ( 110 miles/h ) ? ….
4) a part the not serious and false yours affirmation of A0A=0 lift … what are the other atmonauti “statements that contradict basic aerodynamics “ ?


pilotdave  (D License)

Mar 5, 2008, 11:16 AM
Post #60 of 102 (1487 views)
Shortcut
Re: [marcoT] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Quote:
Lets summarize the topic point of this long post :
3) if lift do not exist in atmo , in which way is possible that the vertical speed when I do the atmo-tandem with out drogue , is around 180 km/h ( 110 miles/h ) ? ….
4) a part the not serious and false yours affirmation of A0A=0 lift … what are the other atmonauti “statements that contradict basic aerodynamics “ ?

I have nothing against atmonauti. It's the statements and diagrams about aerodynamics that I have a problem with. Has anyone with a background in aerospace engineering helped you guys write up your explanations for what's going on, or did you make them up based on what you feel?

Do you believe your angle of attack is 0 in atmonauti? Do you believe the human body makes an efficient airfoil? Do you think a tracking skydiver doesn't produce lift but atmonauts do? Do you believe in a fundamental difference between "creating lift" and "deflecting air?"

Dave


(This post was edited by pilotdave on Mar 5, 2008, 11:19 AM)


Premier LouDiamond  (D 25931)
Moderator
Mar 5, 2008, 11:58 AM
Post #61 of 102 (1475 views)
Shortcut
Re: [marcoT] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Marco, I don't know if that post was aimed at me or not as it contained quotes from this entire thread, many not made by me personally aside from a few.

It is clear to me that you are also missing the message in this and the other thread in the Instructors forum on this topic. I am not about to re-hash the same discussion as all of the points you just made were addressed by either myself or others participating in this thread. Therefore I refer you to post #57 in this thread, it sums up everything in a nut shell.

Perhaps you can address the issues being presented in a better manner than has been presented so far by Marco C or Vins. Until you address the issues mentioned, the manner in which ATMO is being presented ( erroneous aerodynamic principals, made up words and hype) is the biggest cause for people to not take it seriously. Ignoring the problems presented as if they didn't exist by not acknowledging them when brought up or accusing people of being against ATMO because they point them out is not a smart technique to use. Make the suggested changes and in the way ATMOs representatives present it to the rest of the community and perhaps more people would be willing to listen to what they have to say.


I will say this in plain English so that there is no confusion. I don't have anything against ATMO. My issue(s) are similar to everyone elses, in the way it is being presented and the claims being made about what is just another orientation in freeflying.



*Notice*: If someone feels they have been offended or insulted be it due to a language difference/barrier, tone or due to culturally and societal accepted differences in word usage, please see below:

The content of this post was not meant to insult, demean or in any other way cause offense through the use of straight forward honest talk.


(This post was edited by LouDiamond on Mar 5, 2008, 12:00 PM)


SimonBones  (D 28573)

Mar 5, 2008, 12:09 PM
Post #62 of 102 (1471 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Marco, glad to have your input. I think your response however sounds very over defensive. Like I've said above, atmonauti is very fun and I've had some great times with it. I can understand that you would like to spread the word of how much fun atmonauti can be and how unexplored the discipline still is especially since much of the world has yet to seriously pick it up.

You can't treat every critical post as "trashing atmonauti" though. When Mciocca or Vins post the diagram of a skydiver with some wind lines around him, it is not scientific evidence of physics and aerodynamics. If posting a picture of a skydiver doing atmonauti with a floating rig counts as scientific evidence, then many newspaper tabloids would have won Nobel prizes. I have no problem with the idea that a skydiver moving parallel to the ground in freefall can create a small amount of lift, I never have, but I think that the phenomena is difficult to prove. A drawing or picture simply is not science. The idea of lift created is only a theory, not a law of physics.

Although there have been some who have stepped over the lines from criticism and debate to bashing and personal attacks, remember that it takes two to tango. Threads have been locked from your other advocates doing the same thing.

You have called atmonauti part of an evolution. If you believe this, then you must also believe that the evolution is not complete, the sport is still evolving. It does not help to be dismissive to any criticisms. Maybe you can use some well thought out points brought up in debate here to further improve your case whether that be in revising definitions or reevaluating the ammunition of your arguments. That is how science works. When one scientist thinks he's figured something out, another scientific peer can review it and say, "well hey... what about this? This wouldn't work in X situation, etc" This useful observation allows the original scientist to revise his work to further perfect and finalize his theory.

I'd recommend ignoring the ignorant "eurotrash" comments and maybe listen a little more to what your critics are pointing out instead of just dismissing them. Then we can all get on the plane and have fun
Smile


marcoT

Mar 5, 2008, 5:06 PM
Post #63 of 102 (1446 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

A part that is funny to answer to questions with other questions , I will not do the same , answering in this post at all your questions , hoping that you will also answer to mine … before I just want comment shortly your post .

You say : I have nothing against atmonauti

I’m happy to know this , but may be I do not interpretate correctly all your posts where you evidently irony on the atmonauti sketch , this sound to me as to be against … not really pro, and not even neutral , but may be is my wrong interpretation …. Let me know

Any way when you say : “ … Must be atmonauti's magical powers to generate massive lift and thrust at zero angle of attack … “ you say 2 wrong think : the first is that we have NEVER said that at 0 angle of attack we have the maximum lift . At revers , if you tryed to interpretate correctly the sketch ( and not just ridicolizing … ) , you could clearly deduce this :

Watching the Sketch n 1 (file schema-Atmo-portanza-d.jpg)

This sketch show the possibility with the atmonauti technique to obtain lift , using the body as a wing .
This sketch say that the body will act exactly as a wing choose the angle of attack , and regulating different speeds obtaining more or less lift , always avoiding the stall , exactly as indicate in the wing examples and graphic in this sketch. The graphic shows the lift in function of angle of attack , answering to your incorrect affirmation : As you can see the maximum lift you have it at maximum angle of attack , just before the stall .
The same graphics of lift in function of the angle of attack show that at 0 angle of attack (talking about an asymmetric wing as indicate in the sketch and as we are in atmo ) , there is a minimum lift force generate too .
So here the second wrong thing when you say that at 0 angle of attack mean 0 lift .

Analyze also the Sketch n 2 (file : schema-atmo-3.jpg) titled ANGLES ATMONAUTI FLY . As the titled say the aim of this sketch is put in evidence the range of angles used with the atmonauti technique from 10° to 45° . This angles are the range in which the atmonauts fly , regulating their speeds without stalling the human wing . This angles and speed can be different related to the different typologies of atmo-flights and the performance that the atmonaut want to obtain .

In the same sketch are indicate the existing discipline between this new technique is collocate . Between the more efficient track : “flat and efficient” as describe in all the didactics of that time , and taught from the AFF , seen in all the groups tracking jumps before 2000 (see pictures and videos) and the flocking dives , vertical group movements.

So about your first question : “Do you believe your angle of attack is 0 in atmonauti?”
The answere is no . As up wright illustrate the angle of attack is variable in relation the performance you want to obtain and in relation the various different atmo games you are playing. You can have an idea of the different angles of attack observing the atmo flights with smoke or ribbon (angle create between the line head-feet -wing cord- and the line of the smoke/ribbon) . About this is necessary to say that different point of view where is taking the picture , can create different visual effect of this angle .


About your second question : “Do you believe the human body makes an efficient airfoil?”
Not really if we compare with an airplane wing or with a canopies wing ….. Any way we create a sufficient airflow to generate a certain amount of lift . I will not discuss here how much lift we will obtain , but at support of OUR THEORY , we bring objective argumentation that untill now are not been considering and/or commented in a serious way :
- the physic phenomenon of the rig going up and FORWARD ;
- the tandem-atmonauti flying without drogue at vertical speed of 170-190 Km/h (same or less than with the drogue in freefall ) ;
- the fact that the atmo-flights cover horizontal distance definitely more relevant than the vertical distance (as demonstrate on the atmonauti airshow where we have done more than 2 miles of horizontal distance , on 10.000 feet of flight altitude ! )
- the fact that the atmo-flights last in time from 70 to 80 seconds from 13.000 , around the 30 % more than in belly , and the 80% more than vertical freefly , without any tracking rigid long “deflecting air” shape , but completely free in the body to perform a multitude of complex docks and games !!!!

Considering that all this , years ago was just not possible and not imaginable , discover that human can generate lift and so FLY in the real aerodynamics meaning of the word , I think it’s already a great thing … enough to have a little bit of respect for who have introduce this new and revolutionaly concept (NOT TRADE MARKED - SPREAD TO ALL THE WORLD FOR FREE - TEACH TO EVERYBODY IN THE CHEAPEST AND FAST WAY ) , and for defenetly going forward with research and sperimentation , as we think that this can be just a beginning of an unexplorate human possibilities … ATMONAUTI ( Atmo = Atmosphere / Nauti = Navigators ) is not just a name , is a definition of a new human activity : Fly , constantly generating lift and Navigating the atmosphere with efficiency and extreme precision.

About your third question : “Do you think a tracking skydiver doesn't produce lift but atmonauts do?”
IMO Yes . IMO the two condition to create lift for human body are:
- create a wing shape with the body
- create an angle of asset able to start to aliment this human wing from the bord of attack (from the head to the feet) , and consequently regulate the different angles of attack.
Exactly what we do in atmo and evidenciate on the atmo-sketch

Analyzing the track jumps always watch before 2000 we observe that this two condition are not respected :
- the rabbit or leader , watch behind create a body shape as a “reverse wing”
- the people following him from behind , they watching forward , also in this case create a body shape as a “revers wing”
- analizing the line of the body in track is pretty flat , creating a too big angle of attack synonymous of stall ( stall even more accentuate for the reverse wing shape )

In practice in track the phisic phenomenum we observe is resistant : deflection of the air impacting from below long all the body , with a more or less long , rigid , arched or dearched body positions.
In atmo the phisic phenomenum we observe is lift : creating a wing shape and angles of asset able to create different angles of attack.

To make another comparaison , I think that we can assimilate the track to a round parachute and the atmonauti to a wing canopies.
In the round parachute pulling the racer , you will inclinate the calotte and the parachute will “track” in the direction you pull the racer . The parachute track with horizontal movement too , but physically still make a resistant work . The canopies have a different shape respect the parachute , a wing shape , and he normally is trim with angles create angles of attack : physically we observe the lift phenomenon.


Do you believe in a fundamental difference between "creating lift" and "deflecting air?"
About your last question I think the answere is implicite in the previous answere and analysis .
…. I think that if this difference was not existing , the tandem atmo with out drogue was falling down at almost 300 km/h a not 180 km/h .

I hope to have detailed at maximum the answere to your questions . Open to continue the debate on concrete topics , or try to answer any question you want to add.

Anyway can you detail me precisely where I "contraddict basic aerodynamics" and what are the "gros inaccuracies" that you and LouDiamon continue to affirm in your posts.

And if you still believe that lift do not exist , please try to explicate me in wich way is possible that tandem-atmo fly so slow vertically without drogue.



Marco
Attachments: SCHEMA-ATMO-PORTANZA-SITO.jpg (106 KB)
  schema-Atmo-3.jpg (68.8 KB)


pilotdave  (D License)

Mar 5, 2008, 6:37 PM
Post #64 of 102 (1436 views)
Shortcut
Re: [marcoT] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I really have nothing against atmonauti. I mean, it looks like fun. That's what really matters, right?

I still don't understand your diagrams. The first one shows a typical lift coefficient curve for a cambered airfoil. It shows that you get maximum lift at some high angle of attack. Then right below it, you show an atmonaut flying along at 0 angle of attack, which generates very little lift even for a nice airfoil, let alone a guy making hand gestures and sticking a foot above his head. This leads me to believe that a good flat track must generate more lift than atmonauti. Why doesn't your diagram show what you're trying to actually explain?

To be clear, let me define angle of attack as I mean it. It is the angle formed by a line that passes through the jumper's body from head to feet (chord line) and a line parallel to the relative wind. Clearly your diagrams all show an angle of attack of 0.

Ok, diagram 2 is the one that confuses me a little. You again show a couple atmonauts flying along at 0 angle of attack. The red line indicates the trajectory, and the black lines indicate the angle of the jumper with respect to the horizon. Right? Do you see where I'm getting confused? What am I supposed to get out of the diagram? Is the red line supposed to be continuous? I mean, does it indicate the trajectory in relation to the atmonaut's angle of flight? So the difference between the red and black lines is the angle of attack? I'm guessing not... because that wouldn't make sense. So are you showing the angles the atmonaut's body makes with respect to the horizon, or the trajectories atmonauts can fly at with respect to the horizon? See what I'm saying? The diagram is ambiguous. Are you suggesting that an atmonaut can fly at a trajectory of just 10 degrees below the horizon (a glide ratio nearly 6:1)? Or is that just the angle his body makes, but he really falls steeper (ie at a high angle of attack).

It all sounds too good to be true. Do you blame me for being skeptical? Smile

Dave


(This post was edited by pilotdave on Mar 5, 2008, 6:40 PM)


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Mar 5, 2008, 6:55 PM
Post #65 of 102 (1427 views)
Shortcut
Re: [marcoT] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Quote:
And if you still believe that lift do not exist , please try to explicate me in wich way is possible that tandem-atmo fly so slow vertically without drogue.

By placeing yourself at an angle you need to present more control surfaces on both people to the air stream, this is inducing drag and slowing the fall rate, this is no different then putting a small tandem student and a small tandem instructor in baggy, drag producing jump suits and allowing them to go drogueless and never reach tandem terminal speeds. I can fly head up with realtive workers, does that mean I am generating lift in a bootie or knee fly position? You are inducing drag, not generating lift in the body positions you are talking about. The human body is about as aerodynamic as a brick, no amount of body position change in freefall will alter that too much. The amount of drag you have on the body is obliterating any lift that you are generating.

You really need to talk to someone that has a formal understanding of physics and aerodynamics because your drawings are what you think are the factors in play but that is not what is really happening when you look at the real physics and forces in play on a jump.

Seeing the rig move really means nothing.


marcoT

Mar 5, 2008, 6:56 PM
Post #66 of 102 (1425 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LouDiamond] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

You say : Marco, I don't know if that post was aimed at me or not as it contained quotes from this entire thread, many not made by me personally aside from a few.

Was related to you any way , as forum user and as moderator in charge to moderate and keep the discussion in a positive direction . I personally still think that affirmation present in this and in the other atmonauti trhead as :
... I have mine, I say your full of crap!
.... made up by some euro trash to ...
.... cooking up witch doctor aerodynamics, ignoring basic physics and trying
to give it a different name ...
.........Welcome to the stupid club......
… and in plain English.... bullshit, albeit with a sugar coating….
They aliment negativity in the peoples and favourite incomprehension , and worst , bring very down the level of the discussion .
I personal think that a good moderator have not to affirm this stuff, and he have to try to keep out this offensive affirmation , and stimulate everybody to stay on topic .
… I do not say that all the post was offensive … I just say that this kind of affirmation are offensive , and it’s a shame that they are in the threads .
So please note that we have never critique the critic on the topics , and we have always answer with explanations , sketch , pictures , videos etc . But we have just critique the offence and the ridiculization .


You say : Perhaps you can address the issues being presented in a better manner than has been presented so far by Marco C or Vins. Until you address the issues mentioned, the manner in which ATMO is being presented ( erroneous aerodynamic principals, made up words and hype…

Well , can you detail , once again , this “erroneous aerodynamic principals” ?
A part that the post of Vins and Marco they ware related to the atmo-progression-system , and about the safety topic of “direction and navigation” , and sincerously , reading back all the post , there is not one of this posts talking about this main topics ! So a part this , please detail point by point the Vins and Marco “erroneous aerodynamic principals” , so that we can answer you point by point.



You say : I will say this in plain English so that there is no confusion. I don't have anything against ATMO….

Quote :
.... cooking up witch doctor aerodynamics, ignoring basic physics and trying to give it a different name ...
… and in plain English.... bullshit, albeit with a sugar coating….

This your words say pretty clearly , and in a pretty bad way , that you are against atmo !


You say : *Notice*: If someone feels they have been offended or insulted be it due to a language difference/barrier, tone or due to culturally and societal accepted differences in word usage, please see below:

The content of this post was not meant to insult, demean or in any other way cause offense through the use of straight forward honest talk.


In effect this last your post do not contain offensive content …. but you really think you can say the same for the up written examples ?

I conclude remind you the topic argument , hoping that in the next post your will finally answer point by point , avoiding change of arguments and the repetitive affirmation : “erroneous aerodynamic principals” … :

1) post the freefly angled stuff before 2000 , that we have just “labelled“.
2) who want permanently stay off topic and continue in going forward with the offence , please open a new thread and call it “lets trash atmonauti”
3) if lift do not exist in atmo , in which way is possible that the vertical speed when I do the atmo-tandem with out drogue , is around 180 km/h ( 110 miles/h ) ? ….
4) a part the not serious and false yours affirmation of A0A=0 lift … what are the other atmonauti “statements that contradict basic aerodynamics “ ?


marcoT

Mar 6, 2008, 3:06 AM
Post #67 of 102 (1406 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Hi Dave , this is a good post where finally you talk of the technique aspects asking questions avoid any kind of not topic comment. So when you say : Do you blame me for being sceptical ? , I answer you : absolutely no ! This is definitely the way.

You say :
I still don't understand your diagrams. The first one shows a typical lift coefficient curve for a cambered airfoil. It shows that you get maximum lift at some high angle of attack. Then right below it, you show an atmonaut flying along at 0 angle of attack, which generates very little lift even for a nice airfoil, let alone a guy making hand gestures and sticking a foot above his head. This leads me to believe that a good flat track must generate more lift than atmonauti. Why doesn't your diagram show what you're trying to actually explain?

As tell you in the previous answer , this first sketch , as explicate on the text description ( in our web site , and in the magazine where it was publicated) , says that the technique atmonauti permit the generation of lift in using the human body EXATELLY as a wing , compare the two models wings and body . Is clear that the body will act exactly as a wing change different angles of asset and different angles of attack … as a wing . In the same sketch is represented the atmonaut in one of this configuration (not the only one as you can determinate from the range of body angles at witch correspond different angled of attack , described in the successive sketch ).

I believe that this sketch titled “Lift of Atmonauti fly” have the meaning of say that human body used as a wing create lift … and it explicate how a wing works . Human body (indicatively represented in one of the wing situation, to figurate out the example) , act as a wing !

You say : “This leads me to believe that a good flat track must generate more lift than atmonauti”
As indicate also in the graphics when the angle of attack become too big with the consequent stall , and as tell you in the previous post , I believe that track do not create the condition for generate lift , as a stall wing don‘t do :
… the two condition to create lift for human body are:
- create a wing shape with the body
- create an angle of asset able to start to aliment this human wing from the bord of attack (head , shoulders , arms and hands ) , from the head to the feet , and consequently regulate the different angles of attack.
Analyzing the track jumps always watched before 2000 we observe that this two condition are not respected :
- the rabbit or leader , watch behind create a body shape as a “reverse wing”
- the people following him from behind , they watching forward , also in this case create a body shape as a “reverse wing”
- analyze the line of the body in track is pretty flat , creating a too big angle of attack synonymous of stall ( stall even more accentuate for the reverse wing shape )
So in track without wing shape and especially without angle of incidence , you will make a resistant work obtaining the horizontal performance deflecting the air .


You say : “To be clear, let me define angle of attack as I mean it. It is the angle formed by a line that passes through the jumper's body from head to feet (chord line) and a line parallel to the relative wind. Clearly your diagrams all show an angle of attack of 0. “

The definition you say is exactly the same than the mine I give in my precedent post . The body , as precedent explicate in the first sketch , will act as a wing ! In the sketch are indicatively represented just one of the “body-wing” situation to show an example !



Regarding the diagram n. 2 , the title of this sketch is Angles of Atmonauti Flights , and the aim is show the range of the body angles used in atmonauti fly.
The red line and the 2 atmonauts , indicatively represented ONE situation of fly , to make the example . The two black line delimitate the range of the angles of asset , that in relation to the relative wind speed on the body , determinate different angle of attack able to generate lift , always avoiding the stall .
Is clear that every angles of asset in relation to the relative speed on the body will create different angles of attack . To make an example , at same angle of asset but with different speeds you will create different angles of attack ! So the black line, as you can also assume from the black line of the track , indicate the angles of asset at which will corresponds different angles of attack in relation to the speed.
The sketch is indicative but is pretty logic deduce that the black line indicate the body angle of asset (in fact in those lines is not written : trajectory , as in the indicative and different red one) … if you consider so , than the tracking jump will never land .

You say : “It all sounds too good to be true”
In effect is not , because in this black lines is not write trajectory , as in the different red one.

I hope to have answer your question … let me know

----------------
To make more examples about different angles of attack I attach some pics where see some difference.


“atmonauti” in complex is of course a theory , our theory . We are not aerospace engineer and mathematics but both me and Gigliola (she is also a pilot ) , from 10 years now , we are with all our entire live in this thing , documenting ourselves everywhere , talking with pilots and aerodynamics engineer , study aerodynamics theorycally and experiment practically always different things with this technique , grow skills and new input day by day … We are convinct that our theory is so valid , that we have decide to dedicate all our live (no stop) only for the developing of this idea , as we believe can be a great benefit for everybody . Of course we believe that from our point of view this Atmonautics is a “science” that studies the unexplored human fly possibility , (at same than other science initialling not scientifically recognize , and maybe later recognize or may be not ) . Absolutely nobody want to impose this as a recognised science . It is not now and we know very well , but we go forward and we are working hard with this target .
These sketch are not meant to be assertation for aeronautical engineer, are basic information for skydivers and explicate in the easier way the concept behind atmonauti. Anyway everything was always supported by plenty of video and description.
At the moment we support our theories with a series of “fact” that we think important to confirm the theory . This fact are resumed in these points :
- the physic phenomenon of the rig going up and FORWARD ;
- the tandem-atmonauti flying without drogue at vertical speed of 170-190 Km/h (same or less than with the drogue in freefall ) ;
- the fact that the atmo-flights cover horizontal distance (using gps and considering the wind influence ) definitely more relevant than the vertical distance (as demonstrate on the atmonauti airshow where we have done more than 2 miles of horizontal distance , on 10.000 feet of flight altitude ! )
- the fact that the atmo-flights last in time from 70 to 80 seconds from 13.000 , around the 30 % more than in belly , and the 80% more than vertical freefly , without any tracking rigid long “deflecting air” shape , but completely free in the body to perform a multitude of complex docks and games !!!!

We invite everybody that can seriously analyze these aspects or bring some serious contribute participating in this research , as we are doing in more than one directions with also other scientific and non .
We are proposing and divulgate our theory from 2000 including all the safety aspects , happy to help everybody want to try and use this new technique system.
Attachments: tandem-atmo-4.JPG (50.1 KB)
  tandem-atmo-1.JPG (50.9 KB)
  atmo-airshow-1.JPG (41.4 KB)
  atmo-airshow-2.JPG (44.8 KB)
  atmo-airshow-4.JPG (45.3 KB)
  A-foto-cop-11.jpg (29.7 KB)


marcoT

Mar 6, 2008, 3:08 AM
Post #68 of 102 (1404 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SimonBones] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

About the answer “over defensive” I just think to have only ask to detail and prove affirmations and to avoid the offence … I ask also to detail with concrete facts , the continues generic affirmation that atmonauti contain many “erroneous aerodynamic principals”. I have also demonstrate that , until now , the unique real “erroneous aerodynamic principals” is the affirmation of somebody say A0A=0lift

Any way , trying to better understand what you mean , can you please detail what part of my post are “over defensive” ?

You say : “You can't treat every critical post as "trashing atmonauti" though”
I have never treat EVERY critical post as “trashing atmonauti” ! I have always criticise only the offense and ridiculizations as “trashing atmonauti” …. as already said in the LouDiamond answer.
As you can see very well , Me or Gigliola , or Vins , or Marco Ciocca have always answer all the serious critique with long explanations , videos , pictures etc. Say that we not accept the critique it’s look like a paradox to me .
Is clear that for “critique” I mean the concrete one on the arguments , not the generic critique as for examples : “atmonauti contain many erroneous aerodynamic principals”.
Also you in effect when you say :
“When Mciocca or Vins post the diagram of a skydiver with some wind lines around him, it is not scientific evidence of physics and aerodynamics” , you are pretty generic talking about “some line around him” (let’s detail) …. And any way this lines are to explicate with examples the atmonauti technique that just apply aerodynamics (without modify nothing of this science) at human bodies . Is not exact say that this lines “are not scientific evidence of physics and aerodynamics” … they have another up described function .
(I see , in meanwhile I write your answer, a good post of PilotDave about this argument ; I will answer in detail after this)


You say : “If posting a picture of a skydiver doing atmonauti with a floating rig counts as scientific evidence, then many newspaper tabloids would have won Nobel prizes”
Well , in reality is not correct to say that the rig “floating” : the rig goes up and forward !
So you are free to think that this are not a scientific evidence , but the fact is that some concrete “physic phenomenon” happen there ; we think is the lift , and is one of the arguments support our theory … not the only one (see post n.63).
In effect in the closed tread , somebody have insist to motivate this fact , with loose harness , and air pass true the body and the rig … ignoring every time to explicate why the rig not only go up , but he go also FORWARD . We still waiting a serious analysis of this phenomenon that demonstrate the possible reasons different from lift .


You say : “Although there have been some who have stepped over the lines from criticism and debate to bashing and personal attacks, remember that it takes two to tango. Threads have been locked from your other advocates doing the same thing.”

You force the concepts here . I repeat , We have not do or debate about personal attack (can you indicate the post where we have make personal attack ? ) , we have just remind many time to avoid this ,and we have always answer to the criticism . Regarding the closing atmonauti thread , I really do not understand what you say here … first of all the other person are not my “advocates” but peoples that condivide my same passion . About what you say that the thread was close because they ware saying the same thing , I invite to read back both the closed forum :
- The first titled “interesting debate on angled flight on face book” was closed after my last post where I was clearly demonstrating that the person who was accusing me during all the thread to have censored him , ware just FALSE affirmation demonstrate with the facts.
- The second titled “Atmo question” was closed in a situation where someone , who affirm since the beginning and in a definitive way that human can not generate lift , at the end they admit : lift is possible but only in a minimum way … something change? The same person who had no more support of their attack, start to create fake account and play on a dirty level (if you want to know more about this fell free to PM me).
If we synthesize this, it looks as a confirm that human lift is possible, confirming the atmo theory … and someone on this last closed thread (who evidently knows very well aerodynamics) have mathematically demonstrate a kind of pretty significative amount of lift . Check it out.


You say : “You have called atmonauti part of an evolution. If you believe this, then you must also believe that the evolution is not complete, the sport is still evolving”

Is exactly what I thing and what I say from years … as already say from 2000 I think this is just a beginning ! I hope you were not convince of the reverse.




You say : “That is how science works. When one scientist thinks he's figured something out, another scientific peer can review it and say, "well hey... what about this? This wouldn't work in X situation, etc" This useful observation allows the original scientist to revise his work to further perfect and finalize his theory. “

And this is exactly what will be nice that happen ! But until now unfortunately nobodies have say something like : “well hey... what about this? This wouldn't work in X situation, etc”
… yes will be very nice . I’m sure this is the way . We are ready and waiting for this.


You say : “I'd recommend ignoring the ignorant "eurotrash" comments and maybe listen a little more to what your critics are pointing out instead of just dismissing them….”

As amply demonstrate we have always listen and answer to all the serious and specific critics . At the same we have always critics , and we will still do, all the generic critics and the offense .
I think is clear .

Going back at your post n.8 in witch you talk about your tracking jump grips formation , would be nice , as also Marco was asking you , to post some videos or pics of this great jumps. thanks

Peace Love and Respect
Marco


Premier LouDiamond  (D 25931)
Moderator
Mar 6, 2008, 6:08 AM
Post #69 of 102 (1380 views)
Shortcut
Re: [marcoT] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Quote:
Was related to you any way , as forum user and as moderator in charge to moderate and keep the discussion in a positive direction


Marco, as long as the forum rules are not broken, users are free to express themselves, which means disagree with other users. If I or the other moderators didn't allow users to post a conflicting opinion then we would in effect be censoring what people can an cannot say. I would hope that you would take the type of feedback you have gotten from others in these threads as an indicator of how the way Atmo is presented needs to be changed.

Marco, your posts are extremely difficult to follow. Aside from the obvious language barrier/difference, the running on of your text makes it hard to tell what is being quoted and what you are saying. If you look at the bottom of the screen there is a button that says "quote". If you click that button and then insert the text you want to quote and then click the "/quote" button again it will make it easier to understand your posts. EXAMPLE:


Quote:
type some text in here that you want to quote


type your reply to the quote here.

__________________________________________________________





Marco, I am not going to go line by line an address every thing you posted. To do so would be like a dog chasing it's tail. The questions you ask in your post have already been answered in this and the other threads and both you, marco c and vins answer a question with a question or simply ignore it. I don't know if this is due to a language difference or simply not wanting to answer the questions people are asking. The 4 points you have at the bottom of your last post have all been answered more than one time already and by the way, I did not make the last statement about A0A, you are getting what i have said confused with other posters replies.


(This post was edited by LouDiamond on Mar 6, 2008, 8:14 AM)


DJL  (C License)

Mar 6, 2008, 6:50 AM
Post #70 of 102 (1372 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LouDiamond] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Tom Cruise flies Atmonauti.

http://media.npr.org/...aug/cruise/couch.jpg


mciocca  (C License)

Mar 6, 2008, 8:32 AM
Post #71 of 102 (1381 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DJL] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

;o)

Where do you find the time to track this stuff downSmile

I think he should be paying some kind of royalty to be using this stuff on Oprah.

PS Check out the relative wind on Oprahs hair doTongue


marcoT

Mar 6, 2008, 10:25 AM
Post #72 of 102 (1358 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Hi PhreeZone , thanks for your post .
Tell me if I have correctly understand : you say that , placing the two bodies with an angle , the tandem will present more surface to the relative wind coming from below , more than respect the normal flat position , enough to slow down the fall rate at the speed that I have indicate of almost 180 km/h (110 ml/h ) . I’m not sure about this . If you consider the same tandem caratteristics ( same weight and same persons ) , I think that the two bodies acting their double weight on the same single surface , deflecting the air coming from below , they will increase the speed almost at the same terminal vertical velocity in both case flat and with angle .

You also compare this with tandem made by little and light pilot , with little and light passenger , but is not really my case . I weight 84 kg and my passenger are normally from 60 to 80 kg . I have almost 600 tandem-atmonauti made it all with normal passenger (99 % they do really well , the rest 1% can improve) .
The analysis of the data of this flights indicate medially a range of vertical speed between 170 and 190 km /h .

Our explanation of this is that the pilot atmonauti , as soon as he exit from the plane, he present the bodies on the horizontal relative wind (create by the airplane speed ) with a “wing shape”, anticipating the passenger with the head pointed down and forward , creating a wing “bord of attack“ and start to regulate the angle of attack . In practice in this way , the airflow on the two bodies , is not anymore just from below , but from the head to the feet of this double human wing , that start to be alimented and start to produce a certain amount of lift .
With this new condition , the double weight do not act only in the vertical gravity power , but become the “wing load” as a kinetic energy of the wing performance .

To check the relative wind of the body coming from the head and not anymore just from below , observe the ribbon on the feet of this tandem atmo of this attached pics :

Is clearly evident the relative wind is coming from the head to the feet . The body act as a wing and the lift force generated , avoid the increasing of the vertical speed , keep this relatively low (110 ml/h) respect the terminal velocity of the two bodies falling flat without drogue.

In this picture we observe a passenger not to light (80 kg) , flying for the first time in atmo with a good aerodynamic position.
From the side view we can observe the ribbon that show an approximate angle of attack of 10°-15° create with a body angle asset of approximately 25-30° respect the horizon.

From the projection of the ribbon we can assume a very fast horizontal speed
From the position of the atmonauts around the tandem , flying almost as in a medium atmo flights , we can assume a slow vertical speed (110 miles/h … very unusual for a pretty heavy tandem like this ).




You say : I can fly head up with relative workers, does that mean I am generating lift in a bootie or knee fly position?

Well , this may be is not a correct comparation , in freefall , of course the physic phenomenon is the resistance (the drag) .


You say : “Seeing the rig move really means nothing.”
Well , in reality is not correct to say that the rig just “move” : the rig goes constantly up and forward !
So you are free to think that this are not a scientific evidence , but the fact is that some concrete “physic phenomenon” happen there ; we think is the lift , and is one of the arguments support our theory … not the only one (see other precedent post).
In effect somebody have insist to motivate this fact , with loose harness , and air pass true the body and the rig … ignoring every time to explicate why the rig not only go up , but he go also FORWARD . We still waiting a serious analysis of this phenomenon that demonstrate the possible reasons different from lift .
Attachments: tandem-atmo-1.JPG (50.9 KB)
  atmo-tdm-2.JPG (48.8 KB)


SimonBones  (D 28573)

Mar 6, 2008, 10:51 AM
Post #73 of 102 (1354 views)
Shortcut
Re: [marcoT] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Quote:
Going back at your post n.8 in witch you talk about your tracking jump grips formation , would be nice , as also Marco was asking you , to post some videos or pics of this great jumps. thanks

This is a big pain in the butt, but sure I'll give you a little. My computer is very old and slow so trying to upload most anything takes forever. I'm not even going to bother with video. Here are a couple of screenshots from the current tape in my camera. Bigger way formations are in my 2007 tapes which are currently being edited professionally to release a "Mr. Bones 2007" video hopefully by the end of April. Keep your eyes peeled Smile

Anyway, the first two pics attached are a small 3-way track dive formation we made Sunday. The rabbit is on my left and another flyer is docking me on my right.

The second two pics are just firther small examples (shot the weekend before) that taking docks, doing RW, and building formations ARE possible in a track dive. This was said to be impossible elsewhere. Do you think taking docks in a track is impossible? Wingsuiters can do it, why can't trackers? If two trackers can take a dock, why can't three or four? Or more? Why couldn't some docks be taken, trackers flip positions and/or orientations, and take more docks? That would sound like relative work to me.

There may be some video of a few track docks in the video by Penelope Howe linked in my signature line too.
Attachments: DSC00005.jpg (99.7 KB)
  DSC00006.jpg (90.5 KB)
  DSC00007.jpg (94.4 KB)
  DSC00009.jpg (97.4 KB)


madhatter  (B 2075)

Mar 6, 2008, 12:39 PM
Post #74 of 102 (1336 views)
Shortcut
Re: [marcoT] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

This thread started as a SUGGESTION more than a month ago:
"May i suggest, as more and more skydivers are affiliating to the discipline of ATMONAUTI angled social flight (sky flying at its best!), that a sub-heading is created under Skydiving Disciplines, ..."

A brief look (only the first 7 pages) at the Suggestions & Feedback forum shows this to be the one with the most replies to a thread here... Unfortunately the amount of post aren't by users clamouring for another subforum, but it's become a discussion fueled by a few obstinate few.

Remember when freeflying was 'freak flying'? Once it caught on & techniques were standardised, it became a discipline.

IMO there's still a lot of work to be done on atmonauti before it's going to be an official discipline. Rather than trying to persuade us by posting the same, unsubstantiated, arguments over & over again, keep working at the technique, gain followers & then try again.

BTW - I have a radio control 'postcard'. It's a flat piece of corex with a tailfin / rudder glued on at the back. Sure it flies, but not because of any aerodynamic principle. It's deflecting air & flying AGaINST it, not THROUGH it.

Maybe atmo is the new big thing, but you're not going to be able to force it down our throats - 'A spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down' Smile


pilotdave  (D License)

Mar 6, 2008, 12:54 PM
Post #75 of 102 (1328 views)
Shortcut
Re: [madhatter] Atmonauti [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Quote:
BTW - I have a radio control 'postcard'. It's a flat piece of corex with a tailfin / rudder glued on at the back. Sure it flies, but not because of any aerodynamic principle. It's deflecting air & flying AGaINST it, not THROUGH it.

That's just semantics. Lift is the force created perpendicular to the direction of motion. Planes generate lift by deflecting air too. There's no difference between pushing on air and pulling on it. Lift is lift, no matter how it's generated.

Dave


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Dropzone.com : Suggestions and Feedback

 


Search for (options)