See technical images attached showing Atmo vs Track, No Fly Zones, Frontmo and Backmo set up, and an image of a Tandem Atmonauti clearly showing rigs lifting upwards and forwards due to the lift above and slightly ahead of the Atmonaut.
In Freefall we cannot set up directly above another jumper as we will be in the direct burble of the jumper and fall onto such a jumper (as there is no drag/very little drag).
In Atmonauti, and to prove the point that WE ARE NOT FALLING is that very often we set up DIRECTLY ABOVE the other jumpers, sometimes doing RIG SURF'S with our feet etc. a few feet above the other Atmonaut.
Were it not for the fact that we are flying forwards, we would be in a direct burble of the jumper below, WHICH WE ARE NOT.
This is why some truly amazing and dynamic docks are possible in Atmo and not in freefall.
The images youve provided are interesting as they are just reinforcing fedykins theory in more ways than one.
Take for example the first image which has little arrows to indicate where the relative wind is coming from. well this doesn’t make any real sense to me because there is no 'wind' as such, just air in a neutral state. No big hair drier in front of the atmonauts angled at 45 degrees. In fact Both examples are not really that accurate as it gives the impression that both the trackers and the atmo flyers are moving very fast horizontally. surely the descent rate of both atmonauts and trackers is considerably greater than the forward speed and therefore more air pressure would be generated from below, creating high pressure on the bottom surface area which is deflected, propelling both tracker and flyer forward. The only difference I see between the two is that the atmo angle and specific body position could be a more efficent means of achieving greater forward movement.
The image concerning no fly zones also reinforces the fact that the burble of a atmo flyer is allot steeper than the body position. This highlights the fact that an atmo flyer is still descending rapidly and not moving forward as much as the flyer thinks. If like you say atmo is flown in the correct angle, the burble would supposedly be coming off the feet and would be directly behind flyer. This, as illustrated, is clearly not the case. If it was the flyers would be able to venture into the 'no fly zones'.
The image concerning frontmo and backmo, shows quite clearly that if we are still descending rapidly that the leading flyer still has their head and upper body, probably as far as hips area, exposed to relative wind and therefore is able to stay above a backmonaut without the need of any so called 'lift'. also if you look closely at that particular diagram you will notice that the frontmonaut is flying a wide position allowing for greater lengthways surface area, I.e. keeping the arms and legs out of a potential burble area. The backmonaut in comparison is flying a tight position and is positioned further back in relation to the frontmonaut.
The technical diagrams are a good effort to explain what’s going on but it seems to me that they could be a little misleading or be interpreted in such a way as to lead to false conviction.
Please believe me when I say I’m entering this argument with an open mind. so far, however, Im inclined to side with fedykins hypothesis of angular deflection rather than the theory of generated lift.
(This post was edited by atmonaughty on Feb 27, 2008, 3:36 AM)
Dude with all due respect from your last post i can tell that you have NEVER tried atmo. EVER.
To say that the air in front of an atmonaut is static is ridiculous! There is relative wind exactly as indicated in the image due to the horizonal movement at the desired angle as indicated in the image and as experienced by thousands of atmonauts around the world.
To say that "there is no 'wind' as such...." is like saying that in freefall there is no relative wind from below!
Im not going to continue trying to explain something to somebody that has never tried it for themselves.
The remainder of your post is just as uneducated and frankly embarrassing for you. Im not even going to attempt to correct you.
If you are going to add anything more to this discussion group please educate yourself, try it out, and then come back and give us your INFORMED thoughts.
Without going on about personal experience, let’s just say I’ve most defiantly done a few flights, including some nice stuff with big T himself. I believe that on a few occasions I had Marcos grip so unless he was in the wrong orientation I would say I have experienced the dream that is Atmo flight! That was about 4 years ago now so I guess, I need to "re educate myself" huh??????
OK relative wind, what I mean by this is that the air, before we enter and disturb it, is without a doubt in a neutral state. to suggest otherwise is slightly foolish unless your talking about being in the prop wash. The diagrams show direction of the relative wind before it makes contact with the body?! Hahahaha. or if were going to be picky before the pressure bubble that surrounds the leading edges disturbs it.
If we look once again at the atmophotos and remember that we are actually moving faster vertically than we are forward, it would make more sense to suggest that a large proportion of the relative wind is caught on the underside of the body. Trying to explain the lack of air on the chest can be put down to higher pitch and the head burbling out the chest area, this in turn would increase forward speed creating more of a high pressure area on the front of the flyer in the hip area, giving greater push and relative lift (note underline!!). Of course I might be wrong.
It seems to me that you are under the impression that when flying in atmonauti, your forward speed and the orientation of the body allows for shallow trajectory, or some sort of glide? I think that the feeling of this type of flight highly exaggerates what is actually going on. You are still plummeting! If only in a controlled manner. I wonder if you would still have the same point view if you were carrying out an Atmo dive sub 500 foot. At that altitude I’m guessing that all that forward drive and lift would seem pretty insignificant in comparison to your decent rate.
The more photos that you produce and the more romantic your answers get, the more inclined I am to accept the other point of view which uses inductive logic to try and explain this particular aspect of the sport. Its seems odd that in every other aspect of body flight we utilise air deflection to create movement. not with atmo though! Its Lift that drive us!!!! Hmmmm.
sounds a bit like a story I once heard about a emperor and a new suit. I guess if you keep telling your self something for long enough it becomes fact.
In fact, after looking at both sides of the argument, Im siding with the deflection argument. Thanks for all the posts guys. Im outta here. please continue this thread in good spirits.
this is getting a bit repetitive isnt it marco....
gravity affects us universally and all bodies with mass are affected by gravity(even some with no mass such as light being affected by super massive bodies like stars and black holes) this force pulls us to objects with greater mass. the force of gravity pulls us downwards. by moving our control surfaces we can change our angle of attack to a degree though where our center off mass can limit us(watch how really light and tall people have problems sticking it with a denser group in a steep and fast trace). this degree of angle of attack with the angled control surfaces drives us forward. not a great ratio, but definately enough to push us forward to play with
the burble zone, or as you call it - no fly zone-, if the area of disturbed air which has recently been occupied.
Accepted,by moving forward by angular deflection friction and drag is additionally created by the forward momentum.
to be able to create workable lift a couple of very finite variables have to be in play such as independant acceration ie... propellor in a boat or a plane. we dont have one of these, added to the fact that our surface area is so irregular, we really are just drag machines.
the atmonauti web site is very much trying to slam round pegs into square holes... ie.... making its theories fit piecemeal with dynamics that are more relevant to aeroplanes. the physics are universal,
however comparing a human body falling through the air to an aeroplane with smooth surfaces and an independant power source isnt taking into account the diffent variables with each case. It a bit like comparing apples to CD players.
If you want ill pull up the NASA maths from facebook and we can dispute the hard data because we are being a bit broad brush here.
The Atmo web site is empirically based and written by skydivers for skydivers. It is not a scientific document written by aeronautical engineers, or based on hard science.
In my opinion it is a bit like accupuncture. The theory doesnt hold true, isnt scientific but works to a degree. Understanding where and where not to fly is usefull. Some of the theories hold ture though not for the reasons given.
I think the danger in circulating such a document is that it could possibly be an attempt to pass of a theory as proven. Conjecture as hard science.
You're quite correct when you say we do not have a propeller... I must remind you that neither do modern day canopies. if you were to say that modern day canopies do not produce lift you would be wrong. Our canopies cannot remain aloft indefinitly either. But that is not to say they do not generate lift. They do.
The air speed over our airfoil shaped bodies is generated by the angle we chose to fly in, as per our canopies which have shorter lines in the front than at the rear - this causes us to surge forward and generates lift under canopy, whether large or small amounts of lift, over the wing.
Its the same for Atmo. We do not have a propeller, so the body is angled to generated a surge forward which in return generates a stream of air across the curved body form, which produces the lift (whether large or small) that we refer to.
I guess the fact that we haven't landed a wingsuit as yet means that wingsuits don't generate lift either then? If you were to say that you would be wrong too.
The fact the the rate of lift is not sufficient to overcome gravity completely and thus not have sufficient positive lift to stay airborne indefinitely is besides the point.
The point is, and you seem to have missed it, is that whatever lift IS being generated reduces the FF rate, extends the FF time, and allows Atmonauts to achieve great distance, while taking docks in 3 dimensions. We are not falling at the mercy of gravity. We do not have relative wind from below as with freefall. These are facts.
heya marco, ill pull the maths up for you to have a look at later
lets hit the parachute term- parachutes are known as aerodynamic deaccelorators. they in themselves do not create lift but can change their angles of attack, and go slower or faster by changing the drag profile
the same goes for wingsuits
in terms of lift- are you going upwards? no you are not... you are merelely changing the drag profile more or less. its not the same as a wing being accelerated to move upwards
those arent the facts...have a look at the following equations....
Lift is the sum of all the fluid dynamic forces on a body perpendicular to the direction of the external flow approaching that body. The mathematical equations describing lift have been well established since the Wright Brothers experimentally determined a reasonably precise value for the "Smeaton coefficient" more than 100 years ago, but the practical explanation of what those equations mean is still controversial, with persistent misinformation and pervasive misunderstanding.
Sometimes the term dynamic lift or dynamic lifting force is used for the perpendicular force resulting from motion of the body in the fluid, as in an aerodyne, in contrast to the static lifting force resulting from buoyancy, as in an aerostat. Lift is commonly associated with the wing of an aircraft. However there are many other examples of lift such as propellers on both aircraft and boats, rotors on helicopters, sails and keels on sailboats, hydrofoils, wings on auto racing cars, and wind turbines. While the common meaning of the term "lift" suggests an upward action, the lift force is not necessarily directed up with respect to gravity.
Lift is generated when an object turns a fluid away from its direction of flow. When the object and fluid move relative to each other and the object turns the fluid flow in a direction perpendicular to that flow, the force required to do this creates an equal and opposite force that is lift. The object may be moving through a stationary fluid, or the fluid may be flowing past a stationary object— these two are effectively identical as, in principle, it is only the frame of reference of the viewer which differs.
The lift generated by an airfoil depends on such factors as the speed of the airflow, the density of the air, the total area of the airfoil, and the angle of attack. The angle of attack is the angle at which the airfoil meets the oncoming airflow (or vice versa). A symmetric airfoil must have a positive angle of attack to generate positive lift. At a zero angle of attack, no lift is generated. At a negative angle of attack, negative lift is generated. A cambered airfoil may produce positive lift at zero, or even small negative angles of attack.
The basic concept of lift is simple. However, the details of how the relative movement of air and airfoil interact to produce the turning action that generates lift are complex. Below are several explanations of lift, all of which are different but equivalent descriptions of the same phenomenon from different viewpoints.
A fixed-wing aircraft's wings, horizontal, and vertical stabilizers are built with airfoil-shaped cross sections, as are helicopter rotor blades. Airfoils are also found in propellers, fans, compressors and turbines. Sails are also airfoils, and the underwater surfaces of sailboats, such as the centerboard and keel, are similar in cross-section and operate on the same principles as airfoils. Swimming and flying creatures and even many plants and sessile organisms employ airfoils; common examples being bird wings, the bodies of fishes, and the shape of sand dollars. An airfoil-shaped wing can create downforce on an automobile or other motor vehicle, improving traction.
Aifoils- An airfoil is a device which gets a useful reaction from air moving over its surface. When an airfoil is moved through the air, it is capable of producing lift. Wings, horizontal tail surfaces, vertical tails surfaces, and propellers are all examples of airfoils.
The human body is not an airfoil shape guys, no matter how much you want it to be
While any object with an angle of attack in a moving fluid, such as a flat plate, a building, or the deck of a bridge, will generate an aerodynamic force perpendicular to the flow called lift, airfoils are more efficient lifting shapes, able to generate more lift (up to a point), and to generate lift with less drag.
Look at the platform here. This is dropzone.com. A medium about the sport. If flying is so important then being online philosophysing about it is irrelavent. Devils-advocates...maybe at best. The words for this in Italian is cornuto concetto.
All of these theories mean very little to the 60 second of freefall. Unless there is significant experience flying on an angle or coaching in the discipline, then I see little reason to beat these theories to the end. What does it say that the dude, who calls himself "atmonaughty" has only a handful of atmo jumps?
It sounds like a teacher, arguing differential equations with 5th grade math students. Without significant practice in algebra and calculus, you can't understand differential equations. Without significant flying in atmo, how can you begin to explain it?
Is this making sense? I think that the body flying positions and angles are unachievable without lift and arching. I know that burbles are in back. Head levels, with relation to the angle flown is important to development of the discipline. I also think that it takes physical practice rather than philosophy and debating. You can't teach muscle memory over the Internet.
Few points where I Would like to enter the discussion, on the side of Marco Ciocca, which is describing very well all the atmo theories.
Atmonaughty says “Take for example the first image which has little arrows to indicate where the relative wind is coming from. well this doesn’t make any real sense to me because there is no 'wind' as such, just air in a neutral state. No big hair drier in front of the atmonauts angled at 45 degrees.”
On whatever aerodynamic book or website , the relative wind is parallel and opposite to the trajectory. And in our case the trajectory is not the one of the vertical gravity, but the diagonal one.
Atmonaughty says also: “surely the descent rate of both atmonauts and trackers is considerably greater than the forward speed and therefore more air pressure would be generated from below…”
This is wrong, in many occasion, for example during the Airshows we perform, for a vertical distance of 2.500 mt, an horizontal distance of 4.000 mt: almost the double.
Fedkin say “If you want ill pull up the NASA maths from facebook and we can dispute the hard data because we are being a bit broad brush here.”
Yes but please not just a copy and paste of the aerodynamics text and formulation from the Nasa website, like you did on facebook, maybe something more related, for example it would be great to have those studies commissioned by Nasa to speed skydiver on the impossibility of skydivers to generate lift, that you talked about. In the meantime I had a quick search on that website you mentioned and couldn’t find those studies, but find this : Physics and skydiving The air that the skydiver is falling into pushes back, slowing him/her down. What changes the picture is that the skydiver's body is not shaped like a bowling ball (we assume...) but appears to the air more like an airfoil, wing of an airplane. In the neutral "box" position with arms and legs extended to the sides and head slightly down, a skydiver falls straight down in a stable position with the air slipping by evenly on all sides. Raise one arm or leg and more air gets deflected out that side and the body moves the other way. Move your arms back a little and flatten the legs and you slide forward. Controlled turns and slides happen with combinations of these movements. The physics involved is now more related to flying than falling….. Dott. Jeff George –NASA astrophysicist
Fedkin/Piers Roberts you quote in dozen of post the Nasa research where Nasa concludes that the human being can’t generate lift, but I just read one of the Nasa document that I quickly find on line and it's clear now the value of your statement. The professor uses terms as ”airfoil, wing of an airplane, slide forward , the physics involved is now more related to flying than falling”… So all the quote that Fedking is making to the Nasa site , I would say are a bit … imprecise and arrogant.
Also fedking says "in terms of lift- are you going upwards? no you are not... " So you mean that also a glider, or a plane with engine failure , they don't generate lift and therefore are not able to fly? I disagree. I'll copy and paste from the same Nasa website what it's said about gliders (plane with no angine): In order for a glider to fly, it must generate lift to oppose its weight. To generate lift, a glider must move through the air. But the motion of a glider through the air also generates drag. In a powered aircraft, the thrust from the engine opposes drag. But a glider has no engine to generate thrust. With the drag unopposed, a glider quickly slows down until it can no longer generate enough lift to oppose the weight. So how does a glider generate the velocity needed for flight? The simple answer is that a glider trades altitude for velocity. It trades the potential energy difference from a higher altitude to a lower altitude to produce kinetic energy, which means velocity. Gliders are always descending relative to the air in which they are flying.
Honestly I am annoyed by Piers/fedking arrogance, that talks like a phisic professor but unfortunately says a lot of incorrect things.
And also regarding Andy Newel, aka Atmonaughty , you post your question as if you wanted to open a debate on whether lift can be generated or not, but your attitude , followed by your friend Piers, is more like a personal conclusion using words as “surely, doesn’t make any sense, misleading, false conviction , etc” . You could have used a more humble way of asking a confront, such as asking why the no fly zone in that sketch, or about the little arrow describing the relative wind, instead of making your one way proclaim. For sure what I’m still waiting from you are the pictures of you flying in the atmo angles before 1999 (as you affirm …. Do you remember ?) and anyway Marco Ciocca is right when he says that just because you’ve made few jumps with Marco doesn’t mean you understand all the theories aspects. Ridiculous also to create this fake account after disappearing from facebook without answering and post what you were asked, and come and try to destabilize atmonauti also on this platform…great.
And last, yes we have made a theory of human body lift using notion of aerodynamics, so Piers your statement : “It a bit like comparing apples to CD players” , is out of any comprehension, and is not helping a constructive debate.
(This post was edited by Gigliola on Feb 27, 2008, 3:35 PM)
Yes I do have a reservations about the technical side of Atmonauti flight. So what! Its out there, people fly it and long may they enjoy doing it.
Im not going out of my way to stop anyone!
Im not against you guys, nor am I trying to take bread from your table.
I ahve differance of opinion that does lean towards Pier's statments, for sure. Again so what, send along the thought police why dont you.
Im not going to go into the who said what and when saga but if youd like to continue please feel free to PM me about it if you want. I dont wish this particular borathon to lapse into another forum and detract from the initial question.
as I said on face book, I respect what you guys have achieved and I wish you goood flights.
I actually enjoy debating with you, probably more than some of the other personalities.... but
Im not going to get into a name calling exercise, I think it both demeans you and me, so if you want to call people arrogant then maybe you could do it somewhere else...
And yes, when aeroplanes engines cut out, they arent able to create positive lift and go down, and somethimes crash....
Ill throw the variables for lift and drag later on and describe how they affect the sphere of activity which is relevant to us.
There are many paths to angled wisdom, many ways and coaches for people to discover this endeavor. Not just www.atmonauti.com
When you stated that just because someone has done a couple jumps with Tiezzi doesnt mean that they understand everything. From what I have seen no-one has a complete understanding of horizontal movement, even Tiezzi admitted this to me.
I think it was Marco C who said that just because youve done a couple jumps with Marco Tiezzi it doesnt mean you understand everything. To claim that your school and only your school has a full understanding of angled flight isnt true and Im not the only one out there that has learnt very quickly from incredible coached like IPPO FABBI and BABYLON.
Im more than willing to accept your broad theory of angled flight in 'ATMONAUTI THEORY' if you leave it at that. Theory. Unproven and not bound by the scientific method. To gain this approval rigid independant testing methods should be applied and the sums must add up. Currently they dont, thats why you correctly call them a theory. But leave it at that, they dont hold up to scruitiny.
I have been reading the threads on this topic with a lot of interest. I have to say that a lot of your words closely resemble what i thought of "human flight". And i also thought that the human body is not capable of generating lift - for all the same reasons you have listed before. I like how you smirk at the romantics of "human flight" :)
However, I do have a skeptical mind and after reading all the debates, i had to read and educate myself on the subject as i enjoy freeflying and really like the atmo ways of flying.
I read and studied. I also consulted with a physicist and a big shot aeronautical engineer at Boeing, who was also a professor at U of Washington in Seattle.
Based on what i was able to dig up and the conversations I had with these well respected people, everything points out that a human body DOES generate lift. In fact they claim that ANY body is capable of generating lift, even a spinning ball (!).
It was somewhat difficult for me to step away from the belief i held for many years that a human body is just not aerodynamic enough to generate lift. But now i do feel that even though it's minimal, the lift IS generated.
Also, to add to what i have already found on the net, I would like to ask you to post the links to the NASA skydiving studies you refer to and if possible tell me about your own relevant experience and educational background in relationship to this topic.
P.S. To some of the Atmo posters. The name calling is not very mature. Some of you guys with all the experience you have are acting like kids. Your theories of human flight are just that - theories, and are, by default, open to debate. If you cant take criticism - then you're in trouble :) The truth is born in discussions, so i enjoy reading your [constructive] posts as well.
I like the detail specific to wingless bodies which create lift when the correct form is achieved (below):
..."Aerodynamic lift - essential to flight in the atmosphere - was obtained from the shape of the vehicles rather than from wings as on a normal aircraft. The addition of fins and control surfaces allowed the pilots to stabilize and control the vehicles and regulate their flight paths"...
(This post was edited by skymama on Feb 28, 2008, 11:37 AM)
In order for a glider to fly, it must generate lift to oppose its weight. To generate lift, a glider must move through the air. But the motion of a glider through the air also generates drag. In a powered aircraft, the thrust from the engine opposes drag. But a glider has no engine to generate thrust. With the drag unopposed, a glider quickly slows down until it can no longer generate enough lift to oppose the weight. So how does a glider generate the velocity needed for flight? The simple answer is that a glider trades altitude for velocity. It trades the potential energy difference from a higher altitude to a lower altitude to produce kinetic energy, which means velocity. Gliders are always descending relative to the air in which they are flying.
Fedykin/atmonaughty... read the above - which has been cut and pasted from Gigliola's post - so that if you missed it you cant say you never got a second opportunity to educate yourself.
Frost wrote: Atmonauti (also known as angled flight) is a skydiving term for a type of freeflying jump invented by JP Furnari
J Pizzle it was you who invented it?!
fedykin wrote: To claim that your school and only your school has a full understanding of angled flight isnt true and Im not the only one out there that has learnt very quickly from incredible coached like IPPO FABBI and BABYLON.
Hi everybody, forgive me my english, today Power Transaltor doesn't works!
If angled flight was invented by JP Furnari, please let me know when, how, in which date was presented for the first time, which magazines described for the first time the technique that changed our sport, and what those magazines said about it. It would be easy. Ippo Fabbi and Baylon are great coaches but I would remind you that Marco presented for the first time the angled flight on 2000 by the DVD "Atmonauti 2000" and in the magazines "Paramag" (n.161 - 2000, Oct) and the italian "Spazio Verticale" (n.36 - 2007, May/Jun) describing the technique as an invention or discover.
Marco described the innovative spatial position, respect the traditional tracking jumps, focusing the awareness of direction because the new position of the head, the skydiver doesn't look forward but in the opposite direction of flight (and many other things). Marco had written all about atmonauti and angled flight with the genuine excitement of who know to share something new!
I think in the next numbers of those magazines, JP Furnari or other people could be wrote another point of view.
Keep in mind that Babylon read Paramag while Marco was presented the angled flight, but no one, since those articles was written, had discus what Marco described.
Unfortunately I don't know JP Funary but I hope that you can explane me that history, just to permet me to join at this discussion.
Let me say that in 2002 (while the progression in angled flight of Atmonuti was documented in world wide) the knowledge of traking jumps was yet as Patrick Passe written in "Skydiving the Mag" and in the BPA website: http://www.bpa.org.uk/skydive/pages/articles/jun02/ontrack.htm
I'm new in skydiving and maybe I'm wrong but I would be glide to discuss about that invention because, reading the official documents and many magazines, I made a point of view based on written history.
On 2003 Marco and Gi presented the Atmo-Freestyle and FAI, since that occasion, describe the definition of angles.
From year 2003 to 2004 Marco and Gi was joined to the X-Team and in that occasion they teached Atmo to their friends, making with them the firsts records in angled flight, as mentioned on www.atmonauti.com. And finally, from 2004 the angled flight was started to be diffused in the world.
It's all shown in official documents and in many magazines. I would like to know what you think about it.
For these simple reasons, for me, any other "type" of angled flight is "Atmonauti", but if someone can show me that this technique was presented before 2000 by JP Furnari or other people, I'm ready to review my opinions.
(This post was edited by Vins on Feb 28, 2008, 2:00 PM)
Marco presented for the first time the angled flight on 2000 by the DVD "Atmonauti 2000" and in the magazines "Paramag" (n.161 - 2000, Oct) and the italian "Spazio Verticale" (n.36 - 2007, May/Jun) describing the technique as an invention or discover.
(This post was edited by Vins on Feb 28, 2008, 2:05 PM)
God I love the story of the lifting body. Somewhere there is an indepth look into all of the vehicles in the program. To include a couple of books. Its a shame they didn't let Chuck Yeager barrel roll the F-1 even though one of the shorter test pilots did by accident on tow and low due to visibility issues.
Flying bath tubs that produce lift= this describes some of the flyers I flock wingsuits with.
I didnt hear it was him, seen pics of Olav and guys doing angled stuff 95, would be nice for him to post it on here. I saw the same thing on wikipedia, ive heard of the name, though to be honest nothing more. If he'd like to put some info on here it would be great, or failing that someone who knows how it got onto wikipedia?
A fleet of lifting bodies flown at NASA's Flight Research Center (FRC) at Edwards Air Force Base from 1963 to l975 demonstrated the ability of pilots to maneuver and safely land a wingless vehicle. These lifting bodies were designed to validate the concept of flying a wingless vehicle back to Earth from space and landing it like an aircraft at a pre-determined site. X-24A, M2-F3 and HL-10 on parked on lakebed
These unique research vehicles, with their unconventional aerodynamic shapes, were the M2-F1, M2-F2, M2-F3, HL-10, X-24A, and the X-24B. The information the lifting body program generated contributed to the database that led to development of the space shuttle program.
Aerodynamic lift - essential to flight in the atmosphere - was obtained from the shape of the vehicles rather than from wings as on a normal aircraft. The addition of fins and control surfaces allowed the pilots to stabilize and control the vehicles and regulate their flight paths.
All but the M2-F1 were powered by the same type of XLR-11 rocket engine used in the Bell X-1 - the first aircraft to fly faster than the speed of sound. The M2-F1, a lightweight prototype, was unpowered. M2-F1 lifting body in flight Background
The original idea of lifting bodies was conceived about 1957 by Dr. Alfred J. Eggers Jr., then the assistant director for Research and Development Analysis and Planning at the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, now the NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif.
NASA's predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, had earlier been investigating the problems associated with re-entry of missile nose cones. H. Julian Allen, another Ames engineer, determined that a blunt nose cone was a desirable shape to survive the aerodynamic heating associated with re-entry from space. Eggers found that by slightly modifying a symmetrical nose cone shape, aerodynamic lift could be produced. This lift would enable the modified shape to fly back from space rather than plunge to earth in a ballistic trajectory.
These studies by Eggers, Allen, and their associates led to the design known as the M-2, a modified half-cone, rounded on the bottom and flat on top, with a blunt, rounded nose and twin tail-fins. This configuration and those of the later lifting bodies allowed them to be maneuvered both in a lateral and a longitudinal direction so they could be landed on a runway rather than simply parachuting into the ocean as did the contemporary ballistic capsules used in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. M2-F1 towed in flight by C-47 The Pioneering M2-F1
In 1962, FRC Director Paul Bikle approved a program to build a lightweight, unpowered lifting body as a prototype to flight test the wingless concept. It would look like a "flying bathtub," and was designated the M2-F1. Built by sailplane designer Gus Briegleb, it featured a plywood shell placed over a tubular steel frame crafted at the FRC. Construction was completed in 1963.
The first flight tests saw the M2-F1 towed aloft by a hopped-up Pontiac convertible driven at speeds up to 120 mph across Rogers Dry Lake. These initial tests produced enough flight data about the M2-F1 to proceed with flights behind a NASA R4D tow plane at greater altitudes. The R4D (the Navy designation of the C-47 or civil DC-3) towed the craft to an altitude of 12,000 ft. where it was released to fly freely back to Rogers Dry Lake. NASA research pilot Milt Thompson flew the M2-F1 during the first series of tests.
Typical glide flights with the M2-F1 lasted several minutes at speeds of 110 to l20 mph.
More than 400 ground tows and 77 aircraft tow flights were carried out with the M2-F1 before it was retired. A historical artifact now owned by the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, the M2-F1 is on long-term loan to NASA Dryden and has been restored to flight-like condition. The Heavyweights
The success of Dryden's M2-F1 program led to NASA's development and construction of two heavyweight lifting bodies based on studies at NASA's Ames and Langley research centers - the M2-F2 and the HL-10, both built by Northrop Corporation. The "M" refers to "manned" and "F" refers to "flight." "HL" comes from "horizontal landing" and "10" is for the 10th lifting body design that was investigated by Langley.
The Air Force later became interested in lifting body research and had a third design concept, the X-24A, built by the Martin Company. It was later modified into the X-24B and both configurations were flown in the joint NASA - Air Force lifting body program at Dryden.
The basic flight profile of the heavyweight lifting bodies involved being air-launched by NASA's modified NB-52B "mothership" at an altitude of about 45,000 feet. The XLR-11 rocket engine was then ignited and the vehicle accelerated to speeds of up to 1,100 mph and to altitudes of 60,000 to 70,000 feet. After the rocket engine was shut down, the pilots began steep glides towards the Edwards runway. As the pilots entered the final approach leg, they increased their rate of descent to build up speed and used this energy to perform a "flare out" maneuver and slow their landing speed to about 200 mph - the same basic approach pattern and landing speed of today's space shuttles. M2-F2
The first flight of the M2-F2 - which looked much like the M2-F1 - occurred on July 12, 1966 with Thompson again at the controls. By then, the same B-52 used to air launch the famed X-15 rocket research aircraft had been modified to also carry the lifting bodies into the air. The M2-F2 was dropped from the B-52's wing pylon mount at an altitude of 45,000 feet on that maiden glide flight. M2-F2 with F-104 chase
The M2-F2 weighed 4,620 pounds without ballast, was roughly 22 feet long, and had a width of about 10 feet.
On May 10, 1967, during the 16th glide flight, a landing accident severely damaged the vehicle and seriously injured the NASA pilot, Bruce Peterson. (Film footage of the crash was later used in the opening sequence of the popular 1970s-era television show, "The Six-million Dollar Man.") M2-F3
NASA pilots said the M2-F2 had lateral control problems that led to the crash, even though it had a stability augmentation control system. When the M2-F2 was rebuilt and redesignated the M2-F3, it was modified with an additional third vertical fin - centered between the tip fins - to improve control characteristics. M2-F3 drop from a B-52
The first flight of the M2-F3, with NASA pilot Bill Dana at the controls, occurred on June 2, 1970. It was a glide flight to evaluate changes in the vehicle's performance due to the modifications. The modified vehicle exhibited much better lateral stability and control characteristics than had the M2-F2.
Over the next 26 missions, the M2-F3 reached a top speed of l,064 mph (Mach 1.6). Dana was the pilot on that high-speed mission, which took place on Dec. 13, 1972. The highest altitude reached by the M2-F3 was 71,500 feet on Dec. 20, 1972, the date of its last flight, with NASA pilot John Manke at the controls.
A reaction jet control system, similar to thrusters used on orbiting spacecraft, was also installed on the M2-F3 to obtain research data about their effectiveness for vehicle control. As the M2-F3's portion of the lifting body program neared an end, it evaluated a rate command augmentation control system and a side-arm control stick similar to side-arm controllers now used on many modern aircraft.
The M2-F3 is now on display in the National Air and Space Museum, Washington, D. C. HL-10
The HL-10 was delivered to the FRC by Northrop in January 1966, and first flew some 11 months later on Dec. 22 of the same year. The pilot was Bruce Peterson, before he was injured in the M2-F2 accident. HL-10 lifting body landing
The HL-10 was flown 37 times and set several program records. On Feb. 18, 1970, Air Force test pilot Maj. Peter Hoag flew it to 1,228 mph (Mach 1.86), the fastest speed reached by any of the lifting bodies. Nine days later, NASA's Bill Dana flew the HL-10 to 90,303 feet, the highest altitude reached by any of the lifting body craft. The HL-10 was also the first lifting body to fly supersonically - on May 9, 1969, with Manke at the controls.
The HL-10 featured a longitudinally curved bottom and a laterally rounded top and had a delta planform. In its final configuration, three vertical fins, two of them canted outward from the body and a tall center fin, gave the craft directional control. A flush canopy blended into the smooth rounded nose. It was about 21 feet long, with a span of 13.6 feet. Its glide-flight weight was 6,473 lbs. and its maximum gross weight was over 10,000 lbs.
Flights of the HL-10 contributed substantially to the decision to design the space shuttles without air-breathing engines that would have been used for powered landings. The HL-10 flew its final flight on July 17, 1970, and the craft is now is now on public display at the entrance to NASA Dryden. X-24A
Built for the Air Force by Martin, the X-24A was a bulbous-shaped aircraft, with three vertical fins at the rear for directional control. It weighed 6,270 pounds without propellants, was just over 24 feet long, and had a width of nearly 14 feet. X-24A parked
The first unpowered glide flight of the X-24A occurred on April 17, 1969, flown by Air Force Maj. Jerauld Gentry. Gentry also piloted the vehicle on its first powered flight on March 19, 1970.
The X-24A was flown 28 times in a program which, like that of the HL-10, helped validate the concept that a wingless vehicle could be landed unpowered. Some three decades later, X-38 program managers elected to use the X-24A design to save money, since the existing X-24A aerodynamic database was complete. This limited the number of wind tunnel tests that would have been required for a totally new design.
Fastest speed recorded by the the X-24A was 1,036 mph (Mach 1.6), and the maximum altitude reached by the craft was 71,400 feet. Both of those flights were flown by NASA research pilot John Manke, who was also the pilot on its final flight on June 4, 1971. X-24B
The X-24B's design evolved from a family of potential re-entry shapes proposed by the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, each with higher lift-to-drag ratios. X-24B in flight
To reduce the costs of constructing a research vehicle, the Air Force returned the X-24A to Martin for modifications that converted its bulbous shape into one resembling a "flying flatiron" - a rounded top, flat bottom, and a double-delta planform that ended in a pointed nose.
Manke was first to fly the X-24B, a glide flight on Aug. 1, 1973. He was also the pilot on the first powered mission on Nov. 15, 1973.
Among the final flights with the X-24B were two precise landings on the main concrete runway at Edwards, which showed that accurate unpowered re-entry vehicle landings were operationally feasible. These missions, flown by Manke and Air Force Maj. Mike Love, represented the final milestone in a program that helped write the flight plan for today's space shuttle landings.
The final powered flight with the X-24B was on Sept. 23, l975, flown by Bill Dana. It was also the last rocket-powered lifting body flight flown at Dryden. Ironically, it was Dana who also flew the last X-15 rocket plane mission about seven years earlier.
Top speed reached by the X-24B was 1,164 mph (Mach 1.75) by Love on Oct. 25, 1974. The highest altitude reached was 74,100 feet by Manke on May 22, 1975.
The X-24B is now on public display at the Air Force Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB,Ohio.
From what ive seen in this article, there is no data, or even suggestion that human bodies can create lift.
This is a really interesting(mad really, look at the shape of them!) R+D project on creating airframes that can reenter the atmosphere and land safely.
Keep in mind we are talking about airframes, not people.
I dont actually see any data here suggesting that tenis balls or any shape can create lift, if there is, ive read it twice and not seen it.
I know this does look interesting and does show that a unpowered airframe can glide and safely land, but we are talking about an airframe.
Steel, smooth surfaces not crazily loaded can glide. Human bodies with t-shirts and belt buckels and loads more irregular drag creating surfaces simply dont create net lift. Ill say it again, are you moving upwards?