what u consider landing a wing suit? crashing and surviving this after intensive medicare in hospital after few months , probably paralyzed. ...or... landing on the hard ground, so that you go again up and repeat , just as gangglider pilots do?!
All you trying to do here is to convince themselves that one will do that! sure one will! actually some did it already..
Denis landed few years ago w canopy barely inflated and slider still up! Does that count?! As you guys here describing-that landing should be recognized as the first as he was using the canopy only as the tool to get the landing gear in right angle and direction toward the ground!
Silly all this... as I said go and pass by something solid and think what would be less painful to expose (chest, head, legs ) prior being dead!!
Yes,..it is silly,... and it is stupid ,..and so was and is jumping a motorcycle over the fountain at Ceasars Palace, or going over a 186 ft waterfall in a kayak, or jumping over 20 tractor trailors on a motorcycle, or flying an airplane through a burning buiding or freeclimbing cliffs of ice or rock without safety ropes or walking to the top of the highest mountain in Europe on tram wire //// and so forth,..... ALL VERY STUPID per somebody,... but we watch the videos of it don't we? ...and for just a moment we "are" that person and we want them to make it without getting hurt and it does something to us inside when they do "make it" (or they don't) Somehting that at that moment does not seem stupid for some reaason.
My son's stepfather tells him that his dad is very stupid for jumping out of an airplane and many people think it is stupid to live and sleep with lions and gorillas or to handle cobras or sea snakes underwater orto sit on top of a rocket made of 20,000 moving parts all made by the lowest bidders,.. or ??
Myself I think it is stupid to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or drive when drunk or do back fllips and gainers on either skis or on bikes or motocycles,.. or to intentionally ski off a cliff 307 meters high or jump off a cliff , antenna or structure with only one parachute to rely on, .... but then "everyone" has different opinions on what is stupid from their own personal perspective on what they see as their own tolerance for risk and their own willingness to take that risk to gain "something",..either a sense of accomplishment or comfort, money , power, fame or ????
I really don't know...... ...but someone always has to go first,..or try something and NOT talking about the dangers and the possibilities will not stop someone from trying something... I have been stupid enough to prove that to "myself" a few times in my life.... and I was perhaps "lucky".... or a little skillful, a little lucky and a little "prepared to accept the risk at that moment.
Reality ( life or death perhaps) is an illusion,...although apparently a very persistent one. "Einstein" ( with edits)
I DO NOT WANT TO ENCOURAGE ANYONE READING THIS TO EVER ATTEMPT TO LAND A WINGSUIT OR TO DO HOOK TURNS OR FLY A WINGSUIT ALONG CLIFFS OR TO JUMP OFF CLIFFS ON SKIS OR TO RUN KAYAKS OFF WATERFALLS OR TO DO ANYTHING ELSE THAT CAN BE, IS FAIRLY OFTEN AND HAS BEEN FATAL TO THE PERSON ATTEMPTING TO DO IT.
BUT IF JEB TRYS HIS "STUNT" I WILL BE JUST ONE OF US THAT WILL BE WATCHING AND HOPING HE MAKES IT WIHOUT A SCRATCH ...
What would be the part of the body which will take first hit?! on the slope or not ?! What you think?! How you will control the body slide?! How you will prevent rolling or after first contact?! Guys, we have lack of span - period! Speed what jumper need to deal with is simply to high to control. Those who don't believe let take chance and fly the slowest and closest to one SOLID object to get the idea. All this theoretical brainstorming is fun but just please ask your self : What will be the first contact point on my body when I going to be flying to land my self?! head, chest, belly legs?! Start from there... OK
Good points, and as a wingsuit manufacturer, your word gets a lot of attention.
Some record ski long distance jumps are already at insane speeds. It appears to be, maybe, a matter of bodyflight training - the trick is, how does one train for the landing - the transition from wingsuit flight to ski landing? The angles of the skiis and the angle of the wingsuit, might be a limiting factor. Has any wingsuit user researched, or done math calculations, or done some virtual-slope tests, or extensive ski-jump-with-a-wingsuit tests have been done? - Has any ski jumper tested with a wingsuit (as in one video) and made observations it's easier or harder to land with a wingsuit? If they confirm easier, then wouldn't that theoretically allow a higher-speed ski jump to be done safely? - Has anyone tried doing virtual slope tests in the air using GPS data, to see if angle of wingsuit flight + angle of attack + angle of skiis outstretched in front, is of a profile compatible with landing on skiis from wingsuit flight? - Has anyone brainstormed a possible lheoretical training progression that might show and/or disprove that it's possible to train for? (Wingsuit ski jumps, wingsuit braking tests after accelerating to maximum speed down a steep hill, other training techniques that might be possible to brainstorm for?) - how luxuriously well-groomed can a a long single consistent ski slope become, for about say $200,000, still cheaper than many other options? Is ultra-luxurious grooming possible for cheaper than other options? Would it be enough to "help make it possible"? - Ground effect issues. Will it help/hurt ability to do attempt on skiis, and/or help lower landing speed any? (Computer simulation needed?) - Can the skiis help lift while wearing wingsuit? Ski jumpers already angle skiis to help give them lift. At sufficient speed, the lift created by the skiis can actually overcome the added weight of skiis! Did someone also research this factor? - Is it possible to simulate impact scenarios using dummies, computer simulations, etc - A one-time flight a few foot above a slope may scare many people, but what if the wingsuit BASE person is also simultaneously top-class ski racer or jumper too, that's more conditioned to the speed - we may need to experience more people flying over a slope first to collect more data on psychology and impressions.
It would seem slower is best, but other risk factors come into play: The precise window of needing to flare a wingsuit to land on level ground, is probably more dangerous than the longer window you have over a slope, even at higher speeds. Plus, it's also abortable by flying off the edge of the slope, much like in the slope-flying video. Or maybe the other methods are better after all, such as the slide method.
It is true you could definitely be proven right that the speeds are too high, but has enough answers been collected regarding this method? Perhaps a lot has already been done behind the scenes.
Naïve here maybe - but a good fresh brainstorm I hope.
Or it is what might ultimately be a stupid stunt that might really not ultimately help the sport...
(This post was edited by mdrejhon on Sep 4, 2009, 10:26 PM)
With longer arms, stronger pectorals and a gift for aerial acrobatics an orangutan has a better chance than a human ape to land a wingsuit without dangling like a puppet from canopy strings. Has anyone ever trained an orangutan to skydive?
Above certains contact speeds, water is like concrete. I don't see it as a viable landing surface, unless you want to skip across it... Water isn't compressible so doesn't have a very good cushioning effect.
Yes, but aerated water is another idea. The surface tension of still water will be like concrete at high speed, but aerated water, where the surface tension is broken, would be considerably softer and allow to “bleed off the speed”. Think of the bubbles in the landing areas of Olympic high dives to break the surface tension for divers or that a white-water kayaker has now paddled a 186 foot waterfall (result: he cut his lip, video at end of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vFKh22bAlY). Also, possibly incorporate the ramp idea in the form of a huge inflatable slip-n-slide.
Possible idea would include: - marked area on water as the target. - many hoses under water to blow air (lots) - maybe add some soap to water (also decreases surface tension, but may annoy enviro folk if not an eco-friendly brand) - Upon landing/impact immediately shut down air pumps
Forget Vegas, for viewing/sponsorship, many of the world’s great cities have either rivers or large bodies of water nearby (though for cleanliness, I wouldn’t suggest London’s River Thames).
I offer the “RMK Bubble Jump” concept as royalty free. Everyone, except Kallend, can now Google Newtonian Physics to learn more on surface tension.
To me, landing a parachute is MORE impressive than jumping into a big pot of aerated water. Both the technical design AND the athletic feat. I don't see myself saying "ooh, ahh!" when watching somebody fly their wingsuit into a lake. Big freaking deal. With that logic you could put a 400-way RW formation into the same lake. In other words, if you "land your wingsuit" using a method that somebody without a wingsuit could have done... you haven't actually landed a wingsuit at all.
If you want to claim you're going to land a wingsuit... do it on your feet. Otherwise use a parachute.
(This post was edited by The111 on Jan 13, 2010, 10:45 AM)
I agree with you. We know this will not really be a skydiving milestone in our eyes as actual skydivers/wingsuiters. Also, to me a wingsuit is you and some fabric, so I'm not for all the rigid/semi-rigid suit concepts.
This is about the media and the public. I feel certain someone WILL eventually try this; so may as well throw a few more landing ideas out there.
Also, to me a wingsuit is you and some fabric, so I'm not for all the rigid/semi-rigid suit concepts.
I dont mind semi rigid parts. Its still a flying human. Heck, even jetboots or reversed rocket engines.
But name it for what it is.
Aerated water (throw some skydivers in a pool after hot taco night) or building a gazillion dollar slip and slide/themepark ride that (as Matt also says) could safely bring ANY skydiver in freefall down alive....its a cool stunt. But its a contraption landing someone. Just like a parachute. The wingsuit is only an aiming device in those ideas/plans.
If you want to land a wingsuit. Than land a wingsuit.
Though many talk about level flight in flyby's/dive, I have yet to see anyone show some actual proof on that one. Ive gotten the Stealth2 down to 8 to 10 mph fallrates on several flares past canopies. Which has you climb 'relative to a descending canopy', but still not flying level. 10 mph speeds seems doable in terms of (surviveable) verticle speed (Though still a massive hit to the chest...), but at that point, the forward speed is still killer. Trying to slow down the forward speed results in downward speed building up rapidly (stalling), before the forward speed is lost.
I could see a small window, trying to find the middle ground between max flare, and full stall. But Id much rather reach my pilotchute, and grab a canopy for the time being.
Take a look at all the proxi-flights past Bispen, and imagine touchdown during the lower flying.
Even on a mountain/snow it seems like a small pebble, obstacle or uneven, non-lubricated bit of grass could ruin your day...
And all that theoretical talk aside...(drifting).
Land a wingsuit....by landing in a wingsuit, and using the wingsuit as the means of landing. Dont turn it into an episode of roadrunner...
That article talks about Maria von Egidy's IGALS (Integrated Glide and Landing System) design plans: "The most innovative part of the design, though, is that it allows the pilot to drop out of the wing just before landing and hang beneath it, rather like a hang-glider pilot does, making it easier to flare without losing control."
Is it a wingsujit or a hang-glider if the pilot can drop out and hang beneath it before landing?
http://www.newscientist.com/...chute.html?full=true That article talks about Maria von Egidy's IGALS (Integrated Glide and Landing System) design plans: "The most innovative part of the design, though, is that it allows the pilot to drop out of the wing just before landing and hang beneath it, rather like a hang-glider pilot does, making it easier to flare without losing control."
Is it a wingsujit or a hang-glider if the pilot can drop out and hang beneath it before landing?
.................. The IGALS is a wingsuit that can be used in all the same environments as now (off cliffs , out of planes ) but it is necessarily of greater wingspan than current models. Problems of fatigue, strength and control have been fully accounted for in the design. The objective in designing these wings is not to land without a parachute, but to fly better and longer- and the parachute does not mesh well with optimum wing design. It was a cause for huge frustration until by chance I realised that there was a simultaneous solution to body orientation on landing ( Robi has given us chilling visions of landing in a horizontal position ), and the problem of slowing the forward speed sufficiently to land safely. The graphic attatched makes clear that there would be a tremendous increase in drag resulting from the re-orientation of the body, and if the wing continued to fly above, there is every chance that touchdown would be successful and the pilot would walk away smiling.
The attached graphic does look more like a hangglider than a wingsuit. External constructions, hard parts and the body no longer forming the supporting frame for the flyer does make it harder and harder to not see it as something else than a wingsuit.
Something cool and incredible, but more akin to a kite wing. Watching videos of those flying, it seems quite similar to your concept (and is already flown quite high and landed on slopes).
Well the first thing to realise is that the IGALS landing schematic is a GRAPHIC showing only the essential dynamic of my concept for landing a wingsuit, and reveals nothing of the design of the actual suit. I assure you it is nothing like a hanglider or a kite wing, but if ultimately the argument can be made that the IGALS is not wingsuit, sobeit, I look forward to a new generic name for what my patent describes as " a flying apparatus ".
As the large volume of discussion on this topic proves, a "wingsuit " as it exists cannot be " landed " without serious injury or death, unless some miracle " landing substance" is pumped wide and deep at the landing site. Hence the need for a new design. Even if landing was not an issue, the wingsuit as it exists is equipment that is far from having reached its full potential- the angle glide is pathetic, the aerodynamics are utterly basic and arbitrary, and the fatigue factor is intolerable. So what in the name of human flight is wrong with a radically new approach to improve a "wingsuit". I would say that if you can slip into the thing, climb into a plane , jump out and fly , its gotta be a wingsuit ?
Anyway, all my work started with a "wingsuit" , and I am also very attached to the purity and simplicity of the idea, its just that one has to move on a bit, and really , 20 years on, a new decade and all, maybe there could be some space made INSIDE " the box " ?
Looking at the time thats passed since the GS1 thats made, in terms of slow fallrates, the avg (sustained) speeds have gone down from 40-ish mph to low 30's. And flare speeds have recently given the first actual possitive climb after a dive (Visa did a few km/h positive speeds for a few seconds in his Stealth2, without jet turbines:).
Wingsuit design is still in its teens, and slowly maturing...but definetely not on a standstill..
The difference between the Stealth and the GS1 is nominal, and Stealth was a response to " big wing " designs promoted by Tony suits . I recall the ridicule the GS1 was subjected to as being "a garage door " etc at the time of its release, so the "maturing"of wingsuits (since the GS1) have actually been only in the minds and attitudes of the fraternity. Besides for this uncomfortable fact, the real issue in the possibilty of landing a wingsuit is not vertical speed (thats what you have just illustrated ) but forward speed, right ?( oh, and orientation of the body ) So what viable solution has been offered in this regard ? Could one propose diving at 200kms/h just to pull up at the exact moment into " flare" that allows a "climb" within a few feet of the ground, then? a stall , from which you can drop a short distance to land on your feet ? What ? Landing without a parachute does not constitute progress in wingsuit design per se , but since the parachute hinders progress, perhaps this is not a totally frivolous venture, and progress in wingsuit design definately requires breaking moulds, and will happen in spite of comfort zones .
One more tiny detail: I seem to remember something about landing in water in various suits' manuals. Something like, "don't."
This is slightly off topic, but I would like to comment on water landings with a wingsuit. I have made two intentional water landings with my Vampire 1 in the Blue Hole, which is about sixty miles off the coast of Belize. I had no problem getting out of my wingsuit. I had flotation gear, but I didn't inflate it. The Blue Hole jump is organized by Rich Grimm during the Boogie in Belize in February. Check out www.skydivebelize.com for details. It's a great boogie and Rich has done a nice job organizing it for the past five years.
I like the idea of a huuuuuuuuuugggggggggggeeeeeeee box of styrofoam peanut pack. Not only would it make the landing more spectacular, but think of the fun digging through it to get out.
How about landing in a fields of wheat or a swamp of cattails? Is there any chance extraterrestrials use wheat fields to slow their spinning saucers to soft cushioned landings? How long of a crop line would a wingsuit landing at 70mph leave behind?
What is the highest speed anyone ever reached after jumping off a barn roof into a hay stack (landing without a parachute)? How fast might one drop inside a practically empty 100ft Silo?
The difference between the Stealth and the GS1 is nominal
Though in terms of look, the SM1, Stealth, Ghost, XS etc seem to share a lot of design-acpects with the GS1. Though having flown most of the suits, I do have to say there is some definate difference performance-wise. When comparing slower fallrates and especially forward drive, aforementioned suits all seem to perform a bit better than the GS1.
I think its mostly related to the wing design. Im not sure if that was the case with the GS1, but the hanging person under the wing (in wingsuit design) seems to limit the suit, once fully spread, to form a completely smooth underside. Causing air to bleed out from under the legwing/armwings. Not properly putting the pressure/power on.
Instead of a flat wingsurface, it felt a bit more like the hull of a boat (be it greatly exaturated). The 'hanging' legwing attached to the heel, seemed to cause problems putting propper pressure/drive onto the wing in designs made by Birdman/Tony (who called it the Mercury wing if I believe), or at least did in one of the earlier Blade prototypes we flew. Even a fully outstretched leg ment the legwing was still slightly pointing up. Having the legwing on the 'front' of the legs, where its able to almost go into de-arch when the legs are fully stretched, is where it seems to create a more powerfull drive.
I definately think the GS1 was one (if not THE) first 'big surface' wingsuits. And do think it was key in initializing a line of thought/public image that enabled TonySuits to succesfully create and market these bigger wings. Which PF, FYB and BM also followed. Which also goes for the 'drop in' zipper style rigging (although I believe the S-Fly was actually the first one with that feature)
For newer Jii-Wings designs, I do encourage you to take a good look at the more recent design improvements done by each manufacturer. As there is a noticable difference, (especially cellpressure/inflationwise) seen in more recent wingsuit designs, thats definately a big improvement in many ways. Strength needed, and lack of flapping being the 2 most important ones related to that.
In relation to a canopy, a 15 mph flare already looks like level flight/climbing, Visa however managed several (GPS data validated) horizontal flights last week on his Stealth2. And even climbing with speeds of 4km/h on a few jumps (all after massive dives). Which is (I think) the first time we're actually seeing proof for this type of flare. And people are getting equaly impressive results (be it not always with actual data) from other suits.
Comparing it to the GS1 (and suit performance in general, from a few years back) it really does show a significant increase in suit performance in the 'slow fall' arena. Which makes me believe we are still not at the peak of wingsuit design in its current state. Though for sure, other design directions are currently being explored.
I recall the ridicule the GS1 was subjected to as being "a garage door " etc at the time of its release
People still refer to big suits as 'tarp', 'carpet', 'garage door', 'sunblock', 'matras' and more silly terms. So not much has changed there
So the "maturing"of wingsuits (since the GS1) have actually been only in the minds and attitudes of the fraternity.
Id even say the opposite. I think in part it also created an awareness that you 'need' a big suit to fly a certain performance. And it has created a market where people will rather upgrade their wingsuit, than honing their skills with more practice.
Big suits can be an amazing thing in the right hands. Though at the same time, for a beginner can be a severly limiting factor, in learning to fly his/her body properly. Especialy for lighter people..
My idea is that the "landing gear" is a key factor, such as the preparation of the project. The "step by step method" proved to be a good one for my personnal projects so far. So here is the idea: the one who masters the sliding on a steep ski slope at very high speed and can take-off a wingsuit, will be able to land as well. So why not take the challenge by this angle? Then you can try to land after a jump from a ski jump (like the ones i've visited this summer in Norway: small for beginners, big for experts. And btw, how fun it could be to play with a wingsuit from a skijump, with the same risks as for ski jumpers, without a plane and a parachute!)... ;-) Then comes the part where you increase the speed and altitude of the start of the jump.