wingsuit landing without parachute project

[piisfish 135]

plus THIS ONE only broke a jaw, but it was without a wingsuit

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Jeb Corliss' idea is fucking retarded, imo. The actual concept of landing a wingsuit without a parachute is pretty cool, but when you substitute the parachute for a multi-million dollar NASA built ramp, it looses all practicality.

As for the guy who actually did it, can anyone provide any specifics? Specifically exit altitude

Jeb is a genius. Raise a couple million, spend a couple hundred K on the ramp, either survive the jump or bail on it and cha-ching.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Yo DWE,

When your parachuting career spans a grand total of five years, it pays to do your homework before you make sweeping declarative statements like that:

Alan Magee (1943)

Nick Alkemade (1944)

Vesna Vulovic (1972)

Yo Robin,
These people weren't wearing wingsuits. I'm sure even a superior intellect like yours understands the concept of context, no? (refer to thread topic in case you're lost). Excepting yourself, the thread has kinda carried the topic forward, right?.
Sorry to interrupt your pontification; please do carry on.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Hahahaha!!!!

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Yo DWE,

When your parachuting career spans a grand total of five years, it pays to do your homework before you make sweeping declarative statements like that:

Alan Magee (1943)

Nick Alkemade (1944)

Vesna Vulovic (1972)

Yo Robin,
These people weren't wearing wingsuits. I'm sure even a superior intellect like yours understands the concept of context, no? (refer to thread topic in case you're lost). Excepting yourself, the thread has kinda carried the topic forward, right?.
Sorry to interrupt your pontification; please do carry on.

You're right, DWE, I do understand "context" in the way you mean it -- an excuse for saying the wrong thing, most often used by sniveling politicians...

You said "parachute," not "wingsuit," and that's patently false (context notwithstanding).

And you know, even if we grant you your snivel, you still got it wrong:

"But he indeed is the first person to exit a moving flying aircraft without wearing a parachute, landing it, and surviving (height notwithstanding)."

Because, of course, "context" snivels notwithstanding, saying "moving" instead of flying means that anyone with a parachute -- with or without a wingsuit -- who exited a taxiing airplane also qualfies under your definition -- and the list of those who did that before Stoney is even bigger than the list of "real" chuteless jump survivors I provided.

In any event, to frame this in terms of real context, the whole thread had degenerated into absurdity and I was just having a little fun with your grammatically absurd contribution thereto. Kinda absurd that you took it so seriously -- but then, that's characteristic of noobs enamored of their mad skillz and vast knowledge...

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yo DWE,

When your parachuting career spans a grand total of five years, it pays to do your homework before you make sweeping declarative statements like that:

Alan Magee (1943)

Nick Alkemade (1944)

Vesna Vulovic (1972)

Yo Robin,
These people weren't wearing wingsuits. I'm sure even a superior intellect like yours understands the concept of context, no? (refer to thread topic in case you're lost). Excepting yourself, the thread has kinda carried the topic forward, right?.
Sorry to interrupt your pontification; please do carry on.

You're right, DWE, I do understand "context" in the way you mean it -- an excuse for saying the wrong thing, most often used by sniveling politicians...

You said "parachute," not "wingsuit," and that's patently false (context notwithstanding).

And you know, even if we grant you your snivel, you still got it wrong:

"But he indeed is the first person to exit a moving flying aircraft without wearing a parachute, landing it, and surviving (height notwithstanding)."

Because, of course, "context" snivels notwithstanding, saying "moving" instead of flying means that anyone with a parachute -- with or without a wingsuit -- who exited a taxiing airplane also qualfies under your definition -- and the list of those who did that before Stoney is even bigger than the list of "real" chuteless jump survivors I provided.

In any event, to frame this in terms of real context, the whole thread had degenerated into absurdity and I was just having a little fun with your grammatically absurd contribution thereto. Kinda absurd that you took it so seriously -- but then, that's characteristic of noobs enamored of their mad skillz and vast knowledge...

Having a bad day are we? Must be a rough one when you're dredging up old posts and editing them for spelling, grammar, and context.
I feel fer ya buddy.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yo DWE,

When your parachuting career spans a grand total of five years, it pays to do your homework before you make sweeping declarative statements like that:

Alan Magee (1943)

Nick Alkemade (1944)

Vesna Vulovic (1972)

Yo Robin,
These people weren't wearing wingsuits. I'm sure even a superior intellect like yours understands the concept of context, no? (refer to thread topic in case you're lost). Excepting yourself, the thread has kinda carried the topic forward, right?.
Sorry to interrupt your pontification; please do carry on.

You're right, DWE, I do understand "context" in the way you mean it -- an excuse for saying the wrong thing, most often used by sniveling politicians...

You said "parachute," not "wingsuit," and that's patently false (context notwithstanding).

And you know, even if we grant you your snivel, you still got it wrong:

"But he indeed is the first person to exit a moving flying aircraft without wearing a parachute, landing it, and surviving (height notwithstanding)."

Because, of course, "context" snivels notwithstanding, saying "moving" instead of flying means that anyone with a parachute -- with or without a wingsuit -- who exited a taxiing airplane also qualfies under your definition -- and the list of those who did that before Stoney is even bigger than the list of "real" chuteless jump survivors I provided.

In any event, to frame this in terms of real context, the whole thread had degenerated into absurdity and I was just having a little fun with your grammatically absurd contribution thereto. Kinda absurd that you took it so seriously -- but then, that's characteristic of noobs enamored of their mad skillz and vast knowledge...

Having a bad day are we? Must be a rough one when you're dredging up old posts and editing them for spelling, grammar, and context.
I feel fer ya buddy.

There you go again, DWE: I just pointed out the factual errors in your declaration; you're the one who sniveled about the "context" of your own grammatical errors -- and I did not in fact mention spelling at all -- that was something you just made up out of the thin air between your ears... as usual.

As you did about what kind of day I'm having. It's never a bad day when I get a chance to tweak another insufferable know-it-all noob who doesn't. Thanks for stepping in it again.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Hi lippy,

Quote

Exit altitude was

The jumper who jumped out of the DC-3 @ Richmond was only slightly higher than that.

IIRC he only got some broken bones.

~30 yrs ago, or so. I cannot remember his name, though ( getting old ).

JerryBaumchen

Dennis Murphy. He was the only one on the plane that was hurt. He sued USPA for a bunch and won.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[jf951 1]

who ever they are one already beat him!!

http://www.youtube.com/...ture=player_embedded

wingsuit: check
base jump: eh...check!
greater than 10ft: check
with out using a parachute: check

from a technichal stand point, this guy did it

now that this craze is over whats goign to be the next one?

Jump more, Bitch less.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Your linky no worky.

[jf951 1]

my bad...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZizIbSpI-g&feature=player_embedded

Jump more, Bitch less.

[ElectricFetus 0]

Hi there gang! long time lurker, 1st time post, though i do hope there'll be more.

i find this a very interesting idea and one i've pondered on rainy nights, but i lack a lot of hard data. it should be noted that i LOVE intellectual problem solving just for the sake of keeping the gray matter functioning.

let's just assume for the sake of argument, that it CAN be done. what are the actual problems that make it such a difficult goal to reach? i mean if a wingsuit actually FLIES/glides, then coming to the thought that you could 'glide it in' is a natural one, isn't it?

[AND LET ME THROW IN THE DISCLAIMER THAT I'M IN -NO WAY- ADVOCATING THIS BE TRIED. THIS IS STRICTLY AN INTELLECTUAL EXCERCISE TO GET A BETTER GRASP ON THE SUBTLETIES OF THE PROBLEM.]

thinking about this with the bit of knowledge that i have, off the top of my head, i'd think the big issue might be the angle of the glide slope is too steep.

if that is the case, would that tie in to the possibility of somehow adding surface area to the wingsuit so you could catch more air and smooth that slope out?

and if THAT's the case, what about the possibility of a skateboard-type device mounted on the chest area to facilitate landing? nothing fix-wheeled like a skateboard though; i'm thinking something along the lines of shopping cart wheels which turn freely in any direction so that they will turn and travel in the direction of the most momentum so that you would roll nicely as opposed to like a skateboard the wheels would lock up at certain angles.

yea, i'm sure i'm getting a lot of head shaking out there, but as stated, i LOVE purely intellectual issues, and from my frequent visits, i get the idea i'm not alone here. so instead of saying "why?" to this, why shouldn't we say "why not?" for awhile and toss around some ideas?

respectfully submitted. [and let the flames begin!!]

[kuai43 7]

Quote

and if THAT's the case, what about the possibility of a skateboard-type device mounted on the chest area to facilitate landing? nothing fix-wheeled like a skateboard though; i'm thinking something along the lines of shopping cart wheels which turn freely in any direction so that they will turn and travel in the direction of the most momentum so that you would roll nicely as opposed to like a skateboard the wheels would lock up at certain angles.

You mean something like *this*?

Every fight is a food fight if you're a cannibal

Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man. - Anthony Burgess

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

i'd think the big issue might be the angle of the glide slope is too steep. if that is the case, would that tie in to the possibility of somehow adding surface area to the wingsuit so you could catch more air and smooth that slope out?

Yes, vertical descent rate is too great, and will kill you. If you add enough wing to solve that problem, then you're no longer a skydiver - you're an airplane.

[Butters 0]

I love all the comments from people who have never wingsuited ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

i'd think the big issue might be the angle of the glide slope is too steep. if that is the case, would that tie in to the possibility of somehow adding surface area to the wingsuit so you could catch more air and smooth that slope out?

Yes, vertical descent rate is too great, and will kill you. If you add enough wing to solve that problem, then you're no longer a skydiver - you're an airplane.

if you flare a wingsuit, you can actually make it go up; well, one person did. the horizontal speed of 200mph in such a maneouver is probably the larger problem..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[mccordia 73]

Imagine landing the 27 sq/ft canopy Luidi landed, with your body tied onto the canopy horizontaly, having no feet to land on, impacting face-first, and at 4 times the speed he did it, with a flare moment thats even smaller and VERY sensitive to stall (meaning you dont slow down enough).

Ive gotten my wingsuit as slow as 8 mph during flares. Visa is the only one I know of who actually logged a climb on his GPS. But still, insanely fast forward.

You can add all kinds of spars, rigs, wheels etc that slowly turn it into an airplane. But the basic 'land a wingsuit' is similar to jumping out of a car driving 150 mph without protection. Try it 10 times, and you accidently come out okay once, break your neck twice, and end up as a long smudge on the high-way on all others.

Many reasons to say one is planning to land...if I could pick one, it would be to get sponsors who pay a lot of 'preparation' jumps, gear, exposure on tv etc for me for the coming years..

In reply to 'at least 5 other guys'
I think they are fictional characters that help create a sense of urgency to raise more funds for sponsored preparation

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[billvon 2,396]

>If you add enough wing to solve that problem, then you're no longer a
>skydiver - you're an airplane.

If that's the case, then accuracy jumpers and CRW folks are _definitely_ not skydivers. 240 square feet? That's an airplane!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>If you add enough wing to solve that problem, then you're no longer a
>skydiver - you're an airplane.

If that's the case, then accuracy jumpers and CRW folks are _definitely_ not skydivers. 240 square feet? That's an airplane!

We're talking about freefall wingsuiting. If you're under canopy, you are no longer freefalling, and the wingsuit is irrelevant at that point. And once a skydiver's parachute is deployed, they become, more specifically, "parachutists". At any rate, if you have enough wing on you be able to land safely without deploying a chute, then I don't think you'll still be considered a freefall skydiver.

[rdufokker 6]

It doesn't seem impossible to do. The ramp and money seem to be the limiting factor. I mean, if a wingsuiter can hold some predetermined glide angle and be able to adjust flatter or steeper from that base angle, and you build the ramp to the closer limit of the flattest glide angle. Then the wingsuiter would be able to approach the ramp at the steeper base angle and as he approaches the ramp flatten out to match the ramp. If anyone remembers the Wide World of Sports back in the early 70's they used to show a segment where guys would strap plates to their asses and be pulled by cars upwards of 80 mph and see who slid the farthest. I don't think sliding down a slide at 120 mph or greater is the problem, it is all ancillary things that could go wrong with the slide that is a bigger problem, i.e. falling off the slide at 120mph, or the slide not being long enough to establish the flare before running out of ramp. Also, hasn't anyone seen those speed skiers going down a mountain at >120mph and fall. They are sliding down a not so smooth, yet slick surface, and crash yet a large portion walk away.

So is the question theoretically not achievable or just cost or construction prohibited?

BS

Irony: "the History and Trivia section hijacked by the D.B. Cooper thread"

[fasted3 0]

I think a water landing is possible.

But what do I know?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It doesn't seem impossible to do. The ramp and money seem to be the limiting factor. I mean, if a wingsuiter can hold some predetermined glide angle and be able to adjust flatter or steeper from that base angle, and you build the ramp to the closer limit of the flattest glide angle. Then the wingsuiter would be able to approach the ramp at the steeper base angle and as he approaches the ramp flatten out to match the ramp.

I agree that with a ramp that it is theoretically possible. Heck, even without a wingsuit with a long enough, wide enough, steep enough ramp. But I don't think the poster in message #37 was talking about a ramp - he seemed to be discussing the possibility of wing suit landing on flat ground. Good luck on that one! But as you say, even with a ramp matched to the glide ratio, the things that could go wrong during the deceleration are still very great.

[billvon 2,396]

>We're talking about freefall wingsuiting.

Wingsuiting isn't freefall. You are falling at speeds well below freefall speeds, and lift (rather than drag) is the primary force you are managing. It is very akin to flying a very high performance parachute. Indeed, many people have jumped parachutes of similar chord to that of a wingsuit, but they usually cut them away before deploying a landable parachute, since landing a parachute so small is very, very difficult.

>At any rate, if you have enough wing on you be able to land safely without deploying
>a chute, then I don't think you'll still be considered a freefall skydiver.

I don't think any wingsuiter considers themselves a "freefall skydiver." Freefallers go down.

Also, there's no question that it can be done physically; it has been demonstrated at altitude. It's just the matter of getting it right, since getting it wrong will kill you, and there are no backups at that point.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

>We're talking about freefall wingsuiting.

Wingsuiting isn't freefall. You are falling at speeds well below freefall speeds, and lift (rather than drag) is the primary force you are managing. It is very akin to flying a very high performance parachute. Indeed, many people have jumped parachutes of similar chord to that of a wingsuit, but they usually cut them away before deploying a landable parachute, since landing a parachute so small is very, very difficult.

>At any rate, if you have enough wing on you be able to land safely without deploying
>a chute, then I don't think you'll still be considered a freefall skydiver.

I don't think any wingsuiter considers themselves a "freefall skydiver." Freefallers go down.

Also, there's no question that it can be done physically; it has been demonstrated at altitude. It's just the matter of getting it right, since getting it wrong will kill you, and there are no backups at that point.

I've thought of the ramp posibility. Has any thought been given to an AAD device that would measure glideslope and altitude...if not on angle by set altitude AAD fires? There is a ton of risk still awaiting the "pilot" even after passing that demarcation point, but I've kind of figured that such a device would mitigate some of the risk.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Freefallers go down.

And so do wing suit flyers, gliders and people under parachutes. They are falling just like a jumper without a wing suit just slower. Back in the day they wore huge suits for RW and were able to slow down to under 100 mph but they were still in freefall.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals