collapsed or inflated?

[nolanh22 0]

I am still new to wing suiting and have a lot to learn and wanted to hear some thoughts on pitching. So there are 2 basic body positions (that I have observed) when pulling. The first (we'll call it the skydiver way) is where the wingsuiter collapses their leg and arm wings while pulling to aid the PC in catching clean air. Then there is the flat version (we'll call it the BASE way) where the pilot is in full flight and flairs their suit before pitching, but leaves the suit fully inflated. Ive made the assumption that it is only larger suits that use the second technique, perhaps due to glide ratios and that position of the burble. I understand that in the BASE environment minimal loss of altitude is ideal so of course full flight makes more sense. My question is whether this is a method that could/should also be used in skydiving (where the canopies and the PC is smaller) And is this method ideal when using containers that do not have bottomless corners like BASE rigs?

Im open to any thoughts, observations, opinions that you all may have.

[skow 6]

For few years of wingsuit skydiving I have taken the "proper" opening position maybe 5 times. I just don't see the point, as it is less stable than the full flight and creates a big burble. Also you lose the altitude and possible separation from other jumpers.

Sometimes openings from full flight are a bit faster but not in the hard or uncomfortable way.

[Kadde 0]

Iv heard the argument that opening in full flight would put more stress on the lines and because of that you'd have to change them earlier.

[hjumper33 0]

Do you think either has as much stress as a standard skydiving opening straight down? I haven't collapsed since I stopped flying a classic.

[phoenixlpr 0]

nolanh22

I am still new to wing suiting and have a lot to learn and wanted to hear some thoughts on pitching. So there are 2 basic body positions (that I have observed) when pulling. The first (we'll call it the skydiver way) is where the wingsuiter collapses their leg and arm wings while pulling to aid the PC in catching clean air. Then there is the flat version (we'll call it the BASE way) where the pilot is in full flight and flairs their suit before pitching, but leaves the suit fully inflated. Ive made the assumption that it is only larger suits that use the second technique, perhaps due to glide ratios and that position of the burble. I understand that in the BASE environment minimal loss of altitude is ideal so of course full flight makes more sense. My question is whether this is a method that could/should also be used in skydiving (where the canopies and the PC is smaller) And is this method ideal when using containers that do not have bottomless corners like BASE rigs?

Im open to any thoughts, observations, opinions that you all may have.

Collapsed, what I call classic opening position is the recommended way to pull with a wing suit. It is stable although it might do some potato chipping. This is what I teach on FFCs.

[WickedWingsuits 0]

My experience is that I get more consistent and reliable skydive openings if I collapse prior to deploying. I had a couple of line twist cutaways and I think opening in full flight with a d-bag was the root cause.

The equipment we use is still designed to open in a mostly vertical fall. Cut corners and all that certainly help but the dbag can spin up like a propellor before the canopy gets out of the bag. I did see an dbag from Velocity that has a "rudder" of sorts on it and I think that could be a big win. It was also stowless.

My opinion = If you don't WS BASE then its better to collapse on a skydive. If you do WS BASE then its better to have a single muscle memory and should then always deploy in full flight. You can take your chances with a d-bag in that scenario of just take it off and add a TP to your canopy.

Summer Rental special, 5 weeks for the price of 4! That is $160 a month.

Try before You Buy with Wicked Wingsuits - WingsuitRental.com

[dthames 0]

I seem to do better folding everything up and falling on my belly when I pitch.

Instructor quote, “What's weird is that you're older than my dad!”

[mccordia 73]

In terms of minimizing burble on both big and small suits, an arched, collapsed body position will always give cleaner openings, as well as assuring symmetry in deployments.

Do make sure the body position is actually arched, as a lot (A LOT!) of people pull by dropping their knees down, essentially creating a de-arch wich disturbs airflow (bigger burble) and creates a more unstable deployment position.

Especially on low experience ws pilots, full flight (inflated) pulls can cause scary twists and turns when they don't counter asymmetry in flight the proper way. So there Id always recommend a normal collapsed pull.

For base, full flight pulls are for sure the thing to do, as a 100 ft more of less 'lost' on opening is not something you can permit there. But I have no issue going back and forth between different deployment methods, as essentially its the same thing, just more rushed/skipping a step (collapsing) when in base.

Full flight pulls can be used on a skydive, but mandate that the person doing them does know what he's doing, otherwise its not the better of the two.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[OuttaBounZ 0]

nolanh22

I am still new to wing suiting and have a lot to learn and wanted to hear some thoughts on pitching. So there are 2 basic body positions (that I have observed) when pulling. The first (we'll call it the skydiver way) is where the wingsuiter collapses their leg and arm wings while pulling to aid the PC in catching clean air. Then there is the flat version (we'll call it the BASE way) where the pilot is in full flight and flairs their suit before pitching, but leaves the suit fully inflated. Ive made the assumption that it is only larger suits that use the second technique, perhaps due to glide ratios and that position of the burble. I understand that in the BASE environment minimal loss of altitude is ideal so of course full flight makes more sense. My question is whether this is a method that could/should also be used in skydiving (where the canopies and the PC is smaller) And is this method ideal when using containers that do not have bottomless corners like BASE rigs?

Im open to any thoughts, observations, opinions that you all may have.

I never flare before pitching. Why would I want to create more drag, and thus burble, to pitch into? I flare right after I pitch which helps saddle me out nice and soft. And nothing changes between my base pitch and my skydiving pitch.

As far as collapse or no collapse, I'd personally consult your Wingsuit manufacturer. If the wing is designed so it can stay inflated and stable while accessing the BOC then I see no disadvantage.
Just my personal $0.02
That'll be 5 bucks!

Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night.

[verticalflyer 11]

Quote

If the wing is designed so it can stay inflated and stable while accessing the BOC then I see no disadvantage.
!

Apart from the burble its creating by being open of course!

Dont just talk about it, Do it!

[unclecharlie95 3]

Many BASE pilots are flaring now before deployment (as seen in the WWL, wing suits can't fly up video). Good speed, throw the PC after the apex. Climbs of 20-30m quite normal followed by soft subterminal opening. Best learnt from the plane, YMMV

BASEstore.it

[lurch 0]

It depends on what suit is being flown and what deplyment gear config.

I can get away with a full-flight deploy in an S-bird, but not a Rebel 2. I've spent much of the last season experimenting with a proto loosely based on the Rebel 2 I call the Albatross Project with about another 5 sq.ft *(rough estimate) tacked on in selected areas and some modifications to available body positions.

The result was a suit so slow I have to deliberately speed up in 2 axes at once to get a clean deployment and that, if flared before opening, can undeploy a 12-foot bridle and a 34 inch PC.

The suit was designed to analyze braking maneuvers, and the closer you get to a true all-stop the harder it gets to do anything effectively such as plant a canopy with what little airspeed you've got.

The Rebel 2 can undeploy a 34 as well but is a good deal more forgiving which I expect is why the Rebel 2 is on the market and the Albatross is not. The Albatross is rewarding to fly but the most merciless thing I've ever flown when it comes to sloppy deployment technique. My original config was a 10-foot bridle, 28" PC and I fought for 1200 feet to get a canopy out past the thing.

It is technically very tricky to use effectively but with all the wing engaged in a heavy deceleration maneuver the thing throws a shockwave in front of it so badly it renders barometric Alti-track data useless.

The only way to get a clean canopy past a suit of this scale is to drop the nose, speed up, then fold the wings and plummet for a good 2-3 seconds, throw, and get really small again really fast before it can suck the PC back behind me.

The smaller the suit and the faster you're going the more creativity you can get away with in deployment technique. Damn near anything works fine on an old first-gen Birdman GTI.

Everything from Ghosts to Vampires and S-6's through Raptors, R-Birds and Colugos fit somewhere in the spectrum in between.

On an Apache, Aura, Venom or Rebel 2 scale suit, airspeed maintenance starts becoming very important especially for lightweight slow-falling people.

Heavier pilots can get away with a lot more without noticeable negative effects on deployment characteristics. They simply default to higher airspeeds much sooner at every stage of every maneuver.
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[keithbar 1]

lurch

It depends on what suit is being flown and what deplyment gear config.

I can get away with a full-flight deploy in an S-bird, but not a Rebel 2. I've spent much of the last season experimenting with a proto loosely based on the Rebel 2 I call the Albatross Project with about another 5 sq.ft *(rough estimate) tacked on in selected areas and some modifications to available body positions.

The result was a suit so slow I have to deliberately speed up in 2 axes at once to get a clean deployment and that, if flared before opening, can undeploy a 12-foot bridle and a 34 inch PC.

The suit was designed to analyze braking maneuvers, and the closer you get to a true all-stop the harder it gets to do anything effectively such as plant a canopy with what little airspeed you've got.

The Rebel 2 can undeploy a 34 as well but is a good deal more forgiving which I expect is why the Rebel 2 is on the market and the Albatross is not. The Albatross is rewarding to fly but the most merciless thing I've ever flown when it comes to sloppy deployment technique. My original config was a 10-foot bridle, 28" PC and I fought for 1200 feet to get a canopy out past the thing.

It is technically very tricky to use effectively but with all the wing engaged in a heavy deceleration maneuver the thing throws a shockwave in front of it so badly it renders barometric Alti-track data useless.

The only way to get a clean canopy past a suit of this scale is to drop the nose, speed up, then fold the wings and plummet for a good 2-3 seconds, throw, and get really small again really fast before it can suck the PC back behind me.

The smaller the suit and the faster you're going the more creativity you can get away with in deployment technique. Damn near anything works fine on an old first-gen Birdman GTI.

Everything from Ghosts to Vampires and S-6's through Raptors, R-Birds and Colugos fit somewhere in the spectrum in between.

On an Apache, Aura, Venom or Rebel 2 scale suit, airspeed maintenance starts becoming very important especially for lightweight slow-falling people.

Heavier pilots can get away with a lot more without noticeable negative effects on deployment characteristics. They simply default to higher airspeeds much sooner at every stage of every maneuver.
-B

I love to hear this as I'm setting up my w/s rig. I can default to higher airspeeds on command

i have on occasion been accused of pulling low . My response. Naw I wasn't low I'm just such a big guy I look closer than I really am .

[Kadde 0]

I dident think of anything - as said, an argument i heard from someone else. Dident give it much of a thought afterwards either more then the possibility that the stress comes from a different direction then a normal skydive and therefor might load the lines diffrently. (In a way that isnt optimal)

Still - Just a thought i heard form someone else. :)

As an example i read somewhere about this guy climbing with his baserig and was hooked up to his chest strap, not only wasnt it designed to take that load but the load that was applied to it came from all the wrong angles for the stitching to be effective and then failed.