May 28, 2012, 1:15 PM
Post #1 of 7
gary connery without a rig
was telling my bro about gary connery and showed him the video.
he said "the mans got balls, but they'd be even bigger balls if he did it without a rig at all"
to which i instantly defended my new hero by saying "he has spent sooo much time flying in the wing suit with a rig on that he would be virtually flying a different wing suit if he had no rig on because it would inflate all differently without a rig"
was i even close to the ball park??? or just blowin shit out my arse to defend a legend?
it actually got me thinking about the dynamics of the wingsuit without a rig. ps i have done 2 wingsuit jumps four years ago
May 28, 2012, 1:29 PM
Post #2 of 7
Re: [planetsaied] gary connery without a rig
[In reply to]
Spot on, I'd say. It's hard to say what effect removing the rig would have on the aerodynamics of the suit. With all his pre-jump preparation being with the rig, I think it would be foolish suddenly to remove it for the big jump.
Stuntmen who jump motorcycles into rivers via huge ramps also still have a break on the car, in case they need to abort on a less than perfect approach. The rig on the back shows he is a sane person with a decent backup plan.
May 29, 2012, 9:22 AM
Post #5 of 7
Re: [riggerrob] gary connery without a rig
[In reply to]
Even if removing the rig would improve aerodynamics, it would not justify huge additional risk of not having a plan B. Eg. you leave the plane and suddenly the head wind gets much stronger, or you hit some strange thermals (as Gary did), etc. It would really suck to have the remaining 30 seconds of your life to watch the box rig too far in front of you