0
Scrumpot

"Wingboarding"? For Real?? - Coming to a DZ near you???

Recommended Posts

Quote

"This is gonna be a true spectator sport - happening RIGHT IN YOUR FACE... Right in front of the crowds".



Really?
Kinda like NASCAR then - if the "crowds" come to see this, no doubt it is going to be for the sure to be "spectacular" wipe-outs!! - [:/]:S

Sorry dude, I simply still - just cannot see this (actually) happening.

Anyone else?
coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a "for real" Kickstart project. It seems like this guy believes it's the next great super adventure sport. It would seem to be his dream. I wouldn't bet on him, but it's an intriguing idea.

http://www.wypaviation.com/wingboard.html
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like it would be fun, though given my inability to stand up on a wakeboard I probably wouldn't give it a shot because I'm a fan of not dying.

Quote

Regulations placed on the WIngBoard would not be insurmountable, however: the risk is just in delays with regulator red tape.


Definitely understating it. I'd be curious to see how, if at all, this clears the FAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen a similar board where the jumper lays on top of it and flies around the sky. He has a drogue pouch velcroed to his arm, the drogue bridle is tethered to the board. At pull time he just slides off the back and the drogue extracts and floats to earth.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a regulatory perspective, as long as it's launched at altitude, and the flyer-jumper uses a tso'd rig that is deployed at a safe altitude, why should the faa regulate it much differently than skysurfing? If it's risk of the wing freefalling to the ground, shouldn't that be roughly equivalent to jettisoning a skyboard during EPs?

I ask these with an open mind. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you need with the board. Just body surf behind the plane. With a Y attachment point at the hip junction it's just a little below your AC You can control your AOA with your legs. even just with your body you can box the tail of the airplane. With a wing suit you might as well be a sail plane. Fuck that board nonsense with the full front of your body to the wind. It's much harder and takes way more strength even with the attachment at your waist. I'd hate to try to hold on to handle like that. This guy is an fool.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the WingBoard is real, though it is still in development. We hope to have the first full scale manned version flying in 2016 with the first production boards released in 2017. Thank you for everyone who is commenting as the more input the better. As a test pilot and aeronautical engineer, the aero design comes easy. Though with only a few skydives under my belt, I welcome all thoughts and ideas (which are continuously incorporated into the design, but have not yet been included on the prototype). Our end goal is to make WingBoard as safe as wingsuit flying.

If you are interested in more information, you can check out the WingBoard website: http://www.wypaviation.com/wingboard.html

A few further details to some common questions:

Rider Strength: Rider strength requirements are significantly reduced by the tow line design, which splits forces between the rider and the board. The rider also uses a harness similar to a Kite Surfer to transfer the forces to their torso instead of through their arms. The rider could be positioned laying down to reduce forces, but standing up is more fun and more interactiveThe current RC model is fully articulated with small nylon bolts at each of the joints to ensure forces are not too high on the rider. The small plastic servo gears also served as a great test for over stressed joints. The balance of rider force was worked and reworked on the scale models for over a year. When intolerable forces were experienced in the early models, it was readily seen as the specific joints of the rider would break. The 40% model in the next phase will have high end servos at the joints capable of measuring the torque requirements. A key element to the design was also minimize shock on the rope, a specific amount of spring is required to absorb turbulence and not result in sling shooting the rider. The next prototype will also incorporate the quick release foot bindings and tow releases that could not be scaled down to the current prototype. These will ensure that the rider does not experience excessive forces.

Air Launch/Wake Turbulence: Air launch was the original goal, but it is hard to find an aircraft that has a 12 foot wide opening. Also, the tow rope likes to cause lots of oscillation when it is short, it needs to be at least 150 feet long for the tow rope forces and the aerodynamic forces to work well together. The wake turbulence close to the tow plane, especially one big enough to launch the WingBoard is too much, thus requiring a smaller plane and a longer tow rope, the high wing loading of the WingBoard is then enough to cut through the turbulence (notice how smooth the video is).

Too hard to learn/ take off from the ground: There is a plan to tow with a tail-rotor-less / enclosed tail rotor helicopter for initial tests and learning. Climb to 5000ft and then start. The tow rope limits the maneuverability to avoid the main rotors.

Parachute Deploy Height: The great thing is that when you are on tow, you can deploy the parachute without losing much altitude (10-20 feet). Deploy parachute and then automatically timed cut the tow rope a second or two later. Canopy is fully inflated and you have barely come off tow. Think of how a parasail is deck launched from a standing start

Tow Plane Control: We towed the 1/6th scale model with a 1/6th scale piper cub. Yes the tow pilot can feel the WingBoard pulling him, but mostly in yaw and rudder is able to counter the effects. The forces generated by the WingBoard are much less than a glider (it only has to lift 300lbs total vs 1000+ for a glider). It is all about weight ratio, the WingBoard is 1/10th the weight and force of the tow plane ( a glider is typically 1/3rd).

-Aaron Wyp
WingBoard Inventor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the FAA approval will be as easy as you think. There are a lot of things to take into consideration. The rider would have to wear a rig with a main and reserve. It looks like, based on the information provided, the idea is to use BASE type gear to allow for faster openings but that would never be approved for this use. Having a dual canopy system, I'm guessing you would have to use a setup that is proprietary to the system to increase opening speed which would probably make the system unfriendly for terminal openings for skydiving. That would get expensive.

You would also run into issues with people who feel the same way I do and at least one other poster and that is, I would ride it at altitude but there is no way in hell I would take off riding it. I would also be concerned that if the board is cut loose and under canopy, how do you stop it from causing property damage since nobody will be controlling it and there is no telling where it will be chopped from the tow.

You also have to remember, the plane would have to be dedicated entirely to the one wingboarder for the entire flight which means it would be very expensive just for the one flight. That is unless the plane could haul jumpers to altitude while towing the wingboarder, which I am guessing wouldn't be very fuel efficient.

Don't get me wrong, it's a neat idea. I just think the market would be extremely limited which would drive costs up so much it may be prohibitive.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like it requires the use of an aircraft the entire time. Can you bring in more profit in the same amount of time as a Cessna load of tandem students. That's probably what this is eventually going to boil down to.

Other questions; why not just skyboard or wingsuit? The skyboard looks like it'd provide a similar experience and you can fit several of them on the plane. It really kind of looks like this thing is trying to fill the hole the skyboard already filled.

How does one land one of these things? I'm guessing with the parachute?
I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scrumpot

Somehow, I just can't envision aircraft owners, DZO's or even their employed pilots actually allowing this:

Wingboarding

Really?
But I guess... Who knows.
Anybody out here seen this before, let alone have any experience or exposure to it yet, in any way?




This doesn't require a DZ and the aircraft owner might be the same guy(s) that want to hop on that gizmo. General aviation is filled with guys who experiment with horribly unproven stuff.

The guy in the video seems obsessed with the audience this could draw. Not sure why that matters. This thing would have as much spectator appeal as water skiing competitions which typically draw a "crowd" of enthusiasts and family members of competitors. Whoopy.

What concerns me from a technical perspective is the possibility of a low-altitude problem - stability issues, loss of tow rope, gizmo airframe failure. If anything was to go wrong at an altitude too low to use the parachute it's bye bye.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

From a regulatory perspective, as long as it's launched at altitude, and the flyer-jumper uses a tso'd rig that is deployed at a safe altitude, why should the faa regulate it much differently than skysurfing? If it's risk of the wing freefalling to the ground, shouldn't that be roughly equivalent to jettisoning a skyboard during EPs?



Given that premise I don't disagree but that's not the pitch. It's a towed system. Granted it's not unlike a glider, but you (hopefully) can't fall off a glider at low altitude and die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
excaza

***From a regulatory perspective, as long as it's launched at altitude, and the flyer-jumper uses a tso'd rig that is deployed at a safe altitude, why should the faa regulate it much differently than skysurfing? If it's risk of the wing freefalling to the ground, shouldn't that be roughly equivalent to jettisoning a skyboard during EPs?



Given that premise I don't disagree but that's not the pitch. It's a towed system. Granted it's not unlike a glider, but you (hopefully) can't fall off a glider at low altitude and die.

I see. The op is ambiguous re launch, but if it's from the ground under tow. .. well... Maybe it's for the Jeb types, but not for me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being towed isn't for me. I simply compare water skiing to snow skiing. There isn't even a comparison...at least not for me.
Not only would I not do it, I wouldn't even watch it. Sort of fake, boring and limited. Pushing too hard to try to compare to the real thing. At least that's how I'd look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it's a lot of fun but it's kind of limiting. you can box the tail. you can do barrel rolls, and the view is great but that's it. It's not some thing that you are going to want to do every day. Once you've done you've done it. It gets boring. It's not like fourway or freeflying where there is always more to do.

And the funny thing is it's going to take years for this guy to figure this out. News flash. It takes about thirty min to build the harness. What's he going to do for the rest of the time? Other then troll for money?

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I'll go a little overboard on musing about some of the factors, as sometimes I just can't leave well enough alone. Your opinions may differ:

It just isn't going to be mass market both due to costs of operation, and the unusual skills required, which are a barrier to entry. You'll likely need to be a reasonably experienced skydiver and some pilot's license might be required by authorities, and then there would be some pretty specific things to learn to fly this aircraft, without benefit of dual instruction.

It isn't that people can't buy expensive things, after all, financially successful people learn to fly, build up a bunch of hours, and buy 4 seat airplanes for travel, or Pitts Specials for fun. I'd think the Wingboard would be neat for airshows or promotional videos, sort of like Yves Rossy's jet powered wing.

WING LOAD

Back of the envelope wing loading calculation: 12 ft span was suggested. Fairly big chord in the preliminary concepts, say 3 1/2 ft max, thus say 42 ft sq ignoring details. All up weight in the 300 lb range, leaving 100+ pounds for structure + parachutes. So about a 7-8 lbs/sq ft wing loading. That's still fairly low for a light aircraft. The Hummelbird, a minimal sized aircraft, is at about 9 lbs/sq ft at gross.

So even if it gains some weight it isn't a really high wing loading.

A few big challenges come to mind:

STANDING PILOT POSITION

One is the whole standing up thing. Whatever the technical challenge, it seems freaky, although obviously part of the attraction too. The idea, according to Wyp's site, is to weight shift control the glider, but also with force sensors in the bindings and tow bar for aileron commands. (So would it be all electronically controlled and powered electrically?)

The web site mentions the idea of doing spectacular aileron rolls on tow. Sounds fun but that's getting into expert territory.
Gliders have been rolled while on tow as an airshow maneuver, but it is very rare.

There would be more feeling of freedom in not just sitting on an open-air aircraft but standing. Even just sitting in open air is more typically something for classic ultralight aircraft pilots in summer at lower speeds.

Parts of the project are easier to conceptualize if one saw it as just a very compact, ultralight glider, with a pilot in a reclined sitting position ontop (and more conventional aircraft controls). Various tailless, small gliders have been flown, the BrightStar Swift most notably. (Although it is an efficient high aspect ratio aircraft) Center of gravity needs to be carefully controlled on such a small tailless aircraft but it is doable.

Standing up certainly adds a bunch of drag. Despite the light weight it will be pretty draggy on takeoff as speed builds, so it won't act quite like some light, streamlined glider. At least despite the high drag, the total weight to climb with will be much less than when towing a full size two seat glider. Ok, so I guess it is likely doable without an unusually high powered tow aircraft. (C-182s and the like tow banners, although they would be unusual as glider tow aircraft).

DRAG

My quick drag calculation for a person's drag would be say 125 lbs at 100 mph, maybe a little less when crouched. (One can calculate from terminal freefall drag and speed as a rough approximation and reduce by the velocity-squared rule.) Wyp's site mentions "The tow line splits the forces between the rider and the board. The WingBoard takes half of the force, reducing the force the rider must hold by half, only 80 lbs at a speed of 100mph."

Whatever the numbers are, that's still a lot of force to deal with. Jumpers don't like holding onto a jump plane for very long at 100 mph. (And that may be when hugging the boundary layer and turned sideways, although sometimes with extra prop wash) Wingwalkers can go much faster but with a sturdy torso support behind them for much of the time when up on top.

While first impressions can be wrong, mine is that the fun could quickly go out of flying a Wyp, if one is holding on with only arms and feet in bindings. With a solid back brace, or some harness with straps angling forward to the vehicle, that would help a lot.

Maybe speeds can be a little lower for the tow plane and still keep it in the air - even 80 mph would reduce forces 35% - but in general I see the wind forces as a challenge.

With all the person's frontal drag, and a short aspect ratio aircraft, it isn't going to glide well. The website suggests both parachute and rolling landings are possible. Landings could be a bit challenging but people with experience do manage to land low aspect ratio, draggy parachutes at high speed, or high sink rate gliders (Me163).

Rolling landings imply free flight without a tow. Then one is down to using bindings only for staying in place, not even a tow rope to take loads with. So you'd really better be leaning forward into the wind!

CONTROL

Control will be a challenge too. I guess the weight of the device is within the range that can be weight shift controlled, and hang gliders are after all weight shifted on tows from the ground (starting on wheeled dollys that stay on the ground). Stability will be a little different with the pilot weight on top than below -- the big mass up top (say 200 lbs over a 100 lb aircraft) is destabilizing, particularly if pitched or rolled away from level flight.

On the other hand, what with radio controlled airplane technology, there are plenty of acceleration sensors that can be used for artificial stability systems. Still, I'm not sure what the authorities would accept. You can have a homebuilt aircraft with an uncertified autopilot, but that's just an add-on that can be switched off or overpowered, not an essential primary flight control required to fly safely.

PITCH CONTROL

Pitch control is the next thing that comes to mind. Weight shift as mentioned can work for towed hang gliders. But I'm thinking that the pilot of this thing better maintain a pretty steady position -- Given that the pilot's drag is such a big part of the overall system drag, and it is so high off the wing, just crouching down or twisting one's body more sideways could lead to some some sudden pitching moments.

PARACHUTES
So there are supposed to be two parachute systems -- one for lowering the whole aircraft and pilot (as Rossy does), and one for the vehicle only if it is jettisoned. The aircraft & pilot one is a little trickier than Rossy's because the parachute, vehicle, and pilot aren't all attached in the same area. I'm not going to take opening shock with a 100 lb wing just dangling from my feet! So that also suggests that there would have to be additional harness connections between pilot and vehicle.

Would the aircraft/pilot parachute have to be a TSO'd dual parachute system? Hmm, not sure what the standards are for an airplane that normally lands by parachute, since planes with parachutes only use them for emergencies. But it would seem sensible to treat it as a personal parachute system in effect and go with 2 canopies, and the authorities might want that.

(At least in the US, one has a lot more freedom to design and build one's own homebuilt aircraft, while oddly, there is no such category for parachutes. You can copy an airplane design and just build it as a homebuilt -- with some basic safety inspections along the way -- but you can't just build a rig without a TSO and jump from a plane. B.S.!)

ATTACHMENT SYSTEM

My final big concern that comes to mind right now is that the whole attachment system for the pilot is just too unstable. Two bindings and a towrope in hand? Will you start to tip over - or even fall down on your butt - if you hit a bump on the runway on takeoff, or if the towplane bounces a bit and there's a yank on the towrope? At least if you aren't already an expert. What's that going to do to your aileron controls if they are force sensing the bindings or something in the tow bar? Whip the aircraft into a hard bank just as it lifts off? Would aileron sensors instead need to be more like some handheld game controller thumb switch?

Weight shift control errors may be acceptable if speeds are slow (e.g, learning to snowboard and falling down), or if there's some natural stability (e.g. hanging from a hang glider, one can screw up how to properly weight shift, but one doesn't fall over).

While other light aircraft may have minimal structure and crush distances around the pilot, this one certainly has nothing but jumpsuit and helmet if something goes wrong on takeoff or (optional) rolling landing.

Would I want to test fly the thing? No way standing up, not as it is presently envisaged. Sitting on the wing with some support and bracing, so that any inputs (whether by weight shift or other means) can be applied without gross errors? Yeah that's easier to envision.

I'm still a bit conflicted about how much I'd want to fly the thing. Would I rather just go skydive if I want to get my body in the wind, and fly an aerobatic glider or power plane if I want to swoop an aircraft around the sky?

I'd like to see some stability and control calculations and numbers on stall speeds, flight speeds, and forces. Who knows, one might be able to do a decent simulation in the X-plane simulator.

The inventor's small scale remote control tests will be valuable. Although getting the behaviour similar enough due to mass and momentum scaling effects can be tricky.

Overall I'm a little sceptical about all the hype but it doesn't mean some sort of cool towed mini glider can't be made and flown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pchapman





Standing up certainly adds a bunch of drag.

My quick drag calculation for a person's drag would be say 125 lbs at 100 mph, maybe a little less when crouched.

Whatever the numbers are, that's still a lot of force to deal with.

Good analysis. That was one of my initial thoughts too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What kind of damage is it going to do when it hits something on the ground even under a parachute and what drop zone will let it be used as not skydiving will be done while this is flying with 1 person. You obviously don't understand what certifications are going to be required by the FAA and the amount of time it will take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pchapman - thanks for the great analysis! You hit many of the main design points that I have been working on over the last year and a half!

One addition to your analysis, which took me nearly 6 months worth of scale models to determine, the rider actually does not use weight shift to control the board. To pitch up, the rider actually "leans" forward. What the rider is actually doing is picking up the nose of the WingBoard, increasing its angle of attack. The rider moves the board underneath them instead of moving in relation to the board. This is possible due to the tow rope being attached to both the board and the rider through a Y connection. It seemed backward at first, but after significant analysis and wind tunnel (AKA car tow) testing I was able to investigate the behavior. This also makes the design inherently stable in pitch.

You hit the nail on the head with roll stability, a wing leveler is used to help keep the model upright in the current design. The current design opts for more maneuverability and thus is slightly unstable (inverted pendulum) in roll. The wing leveler keeps it upright and stable while allowing for full maneuverability. If you look at some of the earlier designs with high dihedral/sweep, they were stable by themselves without wing leveling, it is the same way a low wing airplane is stable, though with much more dihedral required. All models have been designed so that no control input is required from the rider to maintain stable flight.

Stability and control have been a significant focus of the design. It also helps that my specialty in my day job is aircraft stability and control. I did have an X-plane model during some of the early development, but it is unable to model the tow rope - board - rider interactions. My prototypes, specifically the last prototype, have had significant attention to detail to ensure that not only the size, but the mass and inertia are scaled correctly.

Thank you again for the comments/thoughts and please keep them coming! If you are interested in more in depth discussions or details, feel free to shoot me an email.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not going to happen. This might make its way as a stunt one day.. but not a main stream sport...The take off alone would be incredibly dangerous. Think of the Youtube video of longbaorders who get the speed shakes / wobbles.... If they configured it so it was safe with high quality wheel and frame the board would be to heavy and a dangerous if it become detached from the plane..

a cool idea but not plausible

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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