0
niall1

Wingsuit Soaring

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

If you consider that in a few years back our flyingsuits had almost 0sqm



They didn't have almost 0m^2. They had significantly more than that.

Quote

and now we have almost 4sqm then it is not so far.



We don't have almost 4m^2. We have significantly less than that.

Quote

then it is not so far



It's massively far. Much, much, much further than we've come already, and we've been plucking the low hanging fruit.

Biologist you may (or may not:ph34r:) be, but mathematician you definitely are not. Flight is a physics game, and you fucking suck at crunching the numbers!



Oh dear, Jake a flyingsuit is not a wingsuit ok? for you to able to understand. They were used before the advent of wibgsuits and their surface area is very small (human body shape only) therefore far less then 1sqm.

Making some calculations in a airfoil program I have here, a person around 6ft 185cm wearing an apache, will have around 4,2sqm of area measuring the suit with arms and legs open (flying mode)

So I think you the only one here who sucks with math and everything else probably lol
Lauren Martins - www.youtube.com/user/gisellemartins20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Making some calculations in a airfoil program I have here, a person around 6ft 185cm wearing an apache, will have around 4,2sqm of area measuring the suit with arms and legs open (flying mode)



If you paid for that software - ask for your money back.

1.8m x 1.5m is 2.7m^2 and that's if you are a flying rectangle, the reality is there is less wing. 2 to 2.5m^2 is a more realistic number. Not close to 10 or even to 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Making some calculations in a airfoil program I have here, a person around 6ft 185cm wearing an apache, will have around 4,2sqm of area measuring the suit with arms and legs open (flying mode)



If you paid for that software - ask for your money back.

1.8m x 1.5m is 2.7m^2 and that's if you are a flying rectangle, the reality is there is less wing. 2 to 2.5m^2 is a more realistic number. Not close to 10 or even to 4.



Hi Lukeh, you are ccirrect, My software calculated it on both sides thats why double value of 4.2sqm, so dived that for 2 the area is 2.1sqm.

Some acro/speed hanggliders are only 7sqm and they can soar easily, but you have to add 30kg to your weight (hangglider weight) ence the wingsuit is far lighter and only carry the pilot weight, therefore even being smaller the wingsuit will have a very good efficiency.
Lauren Martins - www.youtube.com/user/gisellemartins20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

even tho pigs are mammals like humans we humans have arms that moves very simmilar to birds, that's a fact, humans didnt evolve with wings, but we do have a good structure for flying, that's why you can fly your suit, if you were a pig you would not be able to even wear any kind of flyable suit.



Again, you're making a false assumption based on childish perceptions. Just because you can stand erect and falp your arms in a wing-like manner does not mean that humans have a 'good' structure for flying.

Your assertion that we're better suited to flying is based solely on the fact that we have evolved into a bipedal species and pigs remain quadrapedic. Their range of motion is tailored to their posture, and ours is tailored to an upright posture.

To suggest that it's bird-like, however, is a stretch at best. Simply because we can mimic the motions, does not mean that the structure or muscularity is suited to that, and it's quite the contrary. That's what wingsuits, which themselves don't allow for a range of motion or allow your arms to even come close to the position of a bird-like wing, tend to tire out fist time fliers and even the best of the bunch start to wear out when they approach 3+ min of flight time. Simply holding the wingsuit in a static postion well short of flapping is over-loading the structure of the human arm/shoulder.

Just because we can flap our arms, our stubby little arms, in a bird-like manner, doesn't mean it's a good tool for that job. The act of mimicing a bird involves pushing the structure to it's limit, and using in a way for which it was not designed, and where it lacks strength.

Your assertion that we're suited for flying is like suggesting that a Smart car with a hitch on it is good for towing. It has a hitch and 4-wheels, but in reality if were to hook anything of significant weight (the whole point of towing), the rear suspension would bottom, you might blow both rear tires, and even if you didn't, you wouldn't get very far, very fast. Can you put a small, empty trailer on there, and move it from one place to the other? Sure, but even then it's not going to do a great job or be very 'stable', but you could do it. It's not really 'towing' because there's no payload, and it's not doing it very well, but it would be 'doing it'.

I know that some of your supporters feel that everyone else is just a naysayer, and that throughout history, all the great inventions have had their naysayers, but take the Wright brothers, for example. There was no proof that powered flight was even possible, and the list of people who had tried and failed was extensive. In this case, however, we have experience in these areas, and the concept has been push in either direction, with very large suits and very small hang gliders and canopies. It's very clear that without a rigid support structure (turning a wingsuit into a something besides a wingsuit), the human structure lacks the strength and design to effectively soar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

even tho pigs are mammals like humans we humans have arms that moves very simmilar to birds, that's a fact, humans didnt evolve with wings, but we do have a good structure for flying, that's why you can fly your suit, if you were a pig you would not be able to even wear any kind of flyable suit.



Again, you're making a false assumption based on childish perceptions. Just because you can stand erect and falp your arms in a wing-like manner does not mean that humans have a 'good' structure for flying.



Dude In what moment in this entire topic I said we have the SAME physical structure as birds? show me were I said that.
As a Biologist I know we have far less muscle structure to hold big suits, but that was not what we were talking about, so don't create ridiculous affirmations that I never said. Read the full topic before posting bullshit.

What I said is that human physic is similar to birds in some ways and that what allows you to fly your suit, we have far more prone bodies to be able to fly then pigs, fact! thats what I told your friend.
Lauren Martins - www.youtube.com/user/gisellemartins20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please keep this going this is the best entertainment I have had on here in years. As an aerodynamicist, safety engineer and reasonably experienced wingsuit pilot this is a very very entertaining thread.

My take as of today is that with current material and human average shape mass and ability to access natural geoogrpahy with the right meterological conditions; even the most efficient wing means that you'll still sink.

Yes materials and design in the future will no doubt improve performance on all aspects that have been debated here, thats just evolution. However the physical limits to be overcome are a long long way off, but hey I always encourage dreamers. However you may be waiting awhile longer before you fly off unpowered or soar safely.
Dont just talk about it, Do it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Please keep this going this is the best entertainment I have had on here in years. As an aerodynamicist, safety engineer and reasonably experienced wingsuit pilot this is a very very entertaining thread.

My take as of today is that with current material and human average shape mass and ability to access natural geoogrpahy with the right meterological conditions; even the most efficient wing means that you'll still sink.

Yes materials and design in the future will no doubt improve performance on all aspects that have been debated here, thats just evolution. However the physical limits to be overcome are a long long way off, but hey I always encourage dreamers. However you may be waiting awhile longer before you fly off unpowered or soar safely.



Glad to see someone who understand about aerodynamics here, welcome to our funny, unpolite and sometimes nonsense discussion, have fun...

Are you a glider, paraglider or hangglider pilot also? besides being an aerodynamicist, do you have knowledge in non powered flight? thermals, waves, soaring, dynamic lift etc?

The end of your post is exactly what my point is about and some here go totally nuts and are sure that soaring will never happen on a wingsuit no matter what. Well I disagree, but then only time will tell if I'm wrong or right...
Lauren Martins - www.youtube.com/user/gisellemartins20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are far less suited to flight than a chicken, in terms of our "flight" muscles and bone structure to support them. If ever we get to soar in a non-rigid wingsuit, it will be less well than a chicken, a bird not noted for its soaring ability.

Once we go to rigid suits, might as well fly a sailplane.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Once we go to rigid suits, might as well fly a sailplane.



Well If one day the wingsuits get rigid and we became able to soar, I will still prefer fly on it then on a sailplane, there dozen of reasons why but a few ones would be.

1- Portability - Be able to carry your wing in your backpack to hill and take off ( you can't carry a 60kg sailplane in your backback and take off from the hill.

2-Price, A wingsuit is far less expensive than a sailplane.

3- Freedom, sensation, fly your own body, feel the wind hitting your face, instead be inside of a mechanic cabin.

Paragliders have far less performance then hanggliders, but they still out numbered of hanggliders in a few years, all because of portability, having wing that folds in a small backpack weight around 10kg the full gear is very appealing for many pilots.
Lauren Martins - www.youtube.com/user/gisellemartins20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am confused:

What is the difference between your proposed "sail suit" and a hang glider? (I mean other than you're effectively zipped up into the suit, as opposed to hanging below it.)

Your suit would need need rigid struts/spars just like a hang glider, and your suit would need very large surface areas (far beyond the size of current wingsuits), just like a hang glider. You would need some some method of changing the AoA of the wing, again, just like a hang glider...

Is the difference that you hang in a hang glider and you zip up into your suit?
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I am confused:

What is the difference between your proposed "sail suit" and a hang glider? (I mean other than you're effectively zipped up into the suit, as opposed to hanging below it.)

Your suit would need need rigid struts/spars just like a hang glider, and your suit would need very large surface areas (far beyond the size of current wingsuits), just like a hang glider. You would need some some method of changing the AoA of the wing, again, just like a hang glider...

Is the difference that you hang in a hang glider and you zip up into your suit?



My suit? I don't have any suits no either going to built one. We are talking about the possibility of soaring on a wingsuit someday and its implications on this topic, nothing to do with "my suit".

Yes you are confused and confusing.
Lauren Martins - www.youtube.com/user/gisellemartins20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me try again.

You wrote the following words earlier in this thread:

Quote

I said before and now is the same thing, clear and simple and i can repeat it for you once again, wingsuits will get bigger with higher Aspect Ratios getting slower and with better sink rate and better glide ratio, extended arm frame with graphene or carbon fiber with an intelligente design will help you keep your arms open with bigger suits effortless. . ."



Extended arm frame, large surface area, higher aspect ratio.

You have as your avatar picture a concept of what that would look like, correct? Even if it might not be exactly that, that was your general idea, right?

So, back to my question: how is that thing (whatever we want to call it) different from a hang glider, other than one would wear it as opposed to hang underneath it?
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Let me try again.

You wrote the following words earlier in this thread:

Extended arm frame, large surface area, higher aspect ratio.

You have as your avatar picture a concept of what that would look like, correct? Even if it might not be exactly that, that was your general idea, right?

So, back to my question: how is that thing (whatever we want to call it) different from a hang glider, other than one would wear it as opposed to hang underneath it?



You answered your own question.

Tell me why sailplanes are sailplanes and hanggliders are hanggliders? both have flat wings, with a pilot in the middle, used for the same thing soaring and thermalling, the different is that in one the pilot is sitting inside the wing and the other the pilot is hanging under the wing. ( not to mention other differences like weight, size and performance)

Why paragliders are paragliders and kitsurf are kitesurf? they look very similar but one the pilot hang close the wing and in another the pilot hang far from the wing. ( not to mention other diff. like weight, size and performance)

Why wingsuits with arm extended frame are wingsuits and hanggliders are hangliders? Beside that you already answered this question yourself, as wingsuits use the pilot body frame + extended arm frame and a hangglider don't use ANY body frame, not the mention you hang under the wing hence the name HANG-glider, on the top of that a wingsuit even with extended arm frame and high aspect ratio will still be far small then a normal size hangglider and far more packable and portable then a hangglider. ( not to mention other diff. like weight, size and performance)

Do you understand it this time?
Lauren Martins - www.youtube.com/user/gisellemartins20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your clarification, because no, you weren't very clear before, at least to me. The point that you made about some of the strain being carried by the body of the wingsuit pilot wasn't obvious from your posts, and that distinction would make a difference to someone who is trying to understand the concept and decide whether they think it would work or not.

So, in the proposed concept, some of the strain would be carried by the body of the wingsuiter, correct? Can you explain what part? Are there spars going off of the hands? From the shoulder on? Are the spars crossing the back (if so, what part of it the portion is carried by the spars and which by the body)?

Edited to add the phrase: "at least to me".
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


Making some calculations in a airfoil program I have here, a person around 6ft 185cm wearing an apache, will have around 4,2sqm of area measuring the suit with arms and legs open (flying mode)



If you paid for that software - ask for your money back.

1.8m x 1.5m is 2.7m^2 and that's if you are a flying rectangle, the reality is there is less wing. 2 to 2.5m^2 is a more realistic number. Not close to 10 or even to 4.



Hi Lukeh, you are ccirrect, My software calculated it on both sides thats why double value of 4.2sqm, so dived that for 2 the area is 2.1sqm.

Some acro/speed hanggliders are only 7sqm and they can soar easily, but you have to add 30kg to your weight (hangglider weight) ence the wingsuit is far lighter and only carry the pilot weight, therefore even being smaller the wingsuit will have a very good efficiency.



you have no fucking clue, a 7sqm speedrider probably weighs less than 10kg's, that's including harness.. :S
“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Hi Lukeh, you are ccirrect, My software calculated it on both sides thats why double value of 4.2sqm, so dived that for 2 the area is 2.1sqm.

Some acro/speed hanggliders are only 7sqm and they can soar easily, but you have to add 30kg to your weight (hangglider weight) ence the wingsuit is far lighter and only carry the pilot weight, therefore even being smaller the wingsuit will have a very good efficiency.



you have no fucking clue, a 7sqm speedrider probably weighs less than 10kg's, that's including harness.. :S



Another nut case speaking nonsense, jesus this forum has some crazy crazy people LOL

Love which speed hangglider weight less than 10kg? please show me and I will go buy it today =)

EDIT: Giselle, if you wish to continue this conversation, lets stay away from personal attacks. Failure to do so will be in violation of the forum rules and you will get some time off from the forum.
Lauren Martins - www.youtube.com/user/gisellemartins20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Blyme! Your post is an absolute nonsense, even tho pigs are mammals like humans we humans have arms that moves very simmilar to birds, that's a fact,



[Disclaimer] This is not a fact. [/disclaimer]
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Oh dear, Jake a flyingsuit is not a wingsuit ok? for you to able to understand. They were used before the advent of wibgsuits and their surface area is very small (human body shape only) therefore far less then 1sqm.



When your scale is between 0 and 4, the human body has a surface area of significantly more than 0m^2.

Quote

Making some calculations in a airfoil program I have here, a person around 6ft 185cm wearing an apache, will have around 4,2sqm of area measuring the suit with arms and legs open (flying mode)



:D:D:D:D:D

[breath]

:D:D:D:D:D

A square that is 2.05 meters across has a surface area of 4.2m^2. That is both much taller and much, much wider than your 6ft tall jumper, and even if you did draw a rectangle around him, the apache wouldn't even fill in all that space.

Your 'airfoil program' is useless if you don't know how to use it. Garbage in, garbage out, and you are talking fucking garbage.

Quote

So I think you the only one here who sucks with math and everything else probably lol



Unfortunately, you only think that because you have no idea just how badly you suck at maths.

You can keep throwing your 'qualifications' around in this thread if you want, but bear this in mind: between the two of us, I'm the guy who actually flies wingsuits and I'm the guy who knows 2*2=4.:D
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

LouDiamond wrote:

EDIT: Giselle, if you wish to continue this conversation, lets stay away from personal attacks. Failure to do so will be in violation of the forum rules and you will get some time off from the forum.
(This post was edited by LouDiamond on Jan 24, 2012, 10:58 AM)



That's fine with me, I'm quite a nice person and I only did a harsh reply, because their reply was harsh to me in the first place. I just hope that this "Advice message" left for me also applies for Jakee and a few other members as they were the ones who first started using agressive and personal attacks just because I disagree with their ideas.
Lauren Martins - www.youtube.com/user/gisellemartins20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0