In all this debate/discussion regarding tracking/atmonauti/angle flying I never came across anyone specifying stats in reference to distance.
In a perfect world a person who is let's say for example 5'10 and 170lbs or 77kg and flying in exact wind speeds and exiting along with pulling at the exact same altitude, which would go further in terms of horizontal distance?
Would steeper go farther or would flatter cover more horizontal distance or perhaps a combination of both like during break off in HD flying and repeating the cycle till pull time? My theory would be flatter but I'm just guessing and have no data or math to back it up.
Hi all, check out the bonus jump in this link (between 2:10 and 3:10) It's awesome even if most of the flyers there were not perfect at negotiating two consecutive turns
Hi all, check out the bonus jump in this link (between 2:10 and 3:10) It's awesome even if most of the flyers there were not perfect at negotiating two consecutive turns
I've read through all these Atmonauti posts and without beiing an expert I can certainly say that a lot of you are posting just bullshit. It's a lot about ego at has nothing to do with reality.
My proposal: Take a normal track diver or "flocking" diver and a guy who really is an atmonauti-expert (like MarcoT). Equipp both with a GPS and altitrack. Let them jump and see who will make how much horizontal distance. You can easily calculate angle, horizontal and vertical airspeed etc.
Then you can really judge whether you can compare tracking/flocking and atmonauti.
Before anybody has done such research you should really stop posting BS and stay hooked on your egoshit. The americans invented and perfected hell a lot of stuff but you should consider that maybe just sometimes it is possible that people from abroad might be able to develop something before you did so.
That was rather fun to read. I don't care what it's called but you're right, some of it is bullshit because it's not true! ... but some of it is. It's all flying and it's great.
Tracking correctly will give more distance, Atmoflocking or whatever you wish to call it is performed relative to other Atmoflockmonuts and can be very fun, dynamic, and extremely challenging. It can be slow speed or high speed. Precise or not so precise. Tracing and multi directional changes are fun as hell and quite challening to stay close to a fast leader.
It's all a form of tracking really. Steep or flat or somewhere in between. Doing it well is another form of bodyflight at it's finest.
Ps: Atmoflocking and Atmoflockmonaut. I made the name up but did not invent it.
(This post was edited by hookitt on Nov 28, 2011, 2:58 PM)
It reminds me of the internet arguments in freeskiing where people fight about if a trick was a rodeo, flat, misty, or bio rotation. Because it is so important to figure it out!
All I know is that this looks like a lot of fun, and I want to learn how to jump out of the plane and do this:
It reminds me of the internet arguments in freeskiing where people fight about if a trick was a rodeo, flat, misty, or bio rotation. Because it is so important to figure it out!
All I know is that this looks like a lot of fun, and I want to learn how to jump out of the plane and do this:
But I can tell you also , than soon will be publishable a University research conduct by Aeronautic engineer and Aeronautic Professor about the Atmonauti theory , with very hi-level software , and I can anticipate than the amount of lift is VEEEEERY significant … ! Stay tuned (…. Soon we will see who LOL for real ) and enjoy Atmo !
maybe I missed it. Its been almost a year, did anything ever come of this statement? has someone on here got some data about the claims of significant lift through 'atmo' or 'Tracking'? Im currently working on something and would greatly appreciate it someone could point me the the direction of some solid evidence.
