wingsuit landing without parachute project

[ElectricFetus 0]

THAT'S the idea, but! i'd want slightly larger, wider wheels for use on grass or perhaps slightly stony [SMALL stones of course] ground.... but otherwise.... that looks like what i had in mind.

the question is could that be made 'jump rig' friendly?

great pic!

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

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

And you know all the people who have jumped a wing suit?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

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

And you know all the people who have jumped a wing suit?

Sparky

Nope, but there are plenty of people here (and in other threads about this topic) that either state it or state things that suggest it ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jonstark 8]

How about a slip and slide the shape of a wind sock?! These guys can easily enough hit the opening of a large tube. Now wet it and narrow it downslope without any attachments along the way to interfere with a smooth slide. WooHoo!!! Spits 'em out like a McDonalds playground slide.

jon

[mccurley 0]

And lube the tube with KY Jelly?

Watch my video Fat Women
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRWkEky8GoI

[stanthepilot 0]

Everyone is thinking about this in terms of current technology. It wasn't so long ago that what wingsuit fliers are doing now seemed impossible. There are many amazing things to come. Give it some time and it will happen.

C-6914, D-5375, SCR-3605, SCS-1530, Stack-33, CCR-25
S/L Jumpmaster, S/L Instructor, Senior Rigger
Commercial Pilot Airplane Single & Multiengine Land, DC-3

[billvon 2,384]

>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.

Yep. And they didn't look where they were going, because they were still basically going straight down. Wingsuiters navigate.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

>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.

Yep. And they didn't look where they were going, because they were still basically going straight down. Wingsuiters navigate.

You may not look where you are going when you do RW but I do. They may navigate but they are still in freefall.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>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.

Yep. And they didn't look where they were going, because they were still basically going straight down. Wingsuiters navigate.

Just because there is a horizontal component to their flight, doesn't mean that they aren't in freefall. That's like saying that when I drive my car up a hill, I'm no longer driving. If you're falling towards the earth, that's freefall.

I suppose you can argue that at some point the glide ratio becomes so shallow that you are now flying versus falling, such as with a glider aircraft. But wingsuiters haven't achieved that level of efficiency.

Here's the dictionary definition for "freefall":

a : the part of a parachute jump before the parachute opens
b : a rapid and continuing drop or decline

How rapid is "rapid"? Well, if you can't land it and survive unhurt, then that's "rapid".

So it looks to me like wingsuiters still fit that definition.

[ElectricFetus 0]

ACTUally i LIKE that wind sock/slip and slide idea.

many years ago i recall seeing what amounted to a giant nylon stocking that was intended for use as an emergency exit from skyscrapers. you jumped in and it was tight enough on you to control your fall to the ground, but flexible enough to take just about any shape.

so: take that, create a hoop maybe let's say 60 feet in diameter, and have the material get gradually narrower, to provide braking action and terminate with the 'exit' being say 1 foot, and extend it for perhaps 150 - 200 feet? as for lubing it, you obviously don't want anything 'gloppy'. maybe plain old silicone spray, if that wouldn't harm the WS?

the obvious advantage is no landing gear contraption.

disadvantage primarily, you still have the issue of flattening that damn glide slope, and yeah, once you commit to that landing you BETTER have spot on accuracy skills...... but yeah.... we're cooking here!

by the way, what effect if any would 'ground effect' have on a wingsuiter to give maybe an extra critical few feet to mess with before landing? or are wingsuiters too small, aerodynamically, to take advantage of that?

[Airviking 0]

Quote

And lube the tube with KY Jelly?

SKY Jelly!

I believe you have my stapler.

[mccordia 73]

Quote

I suppose you can argue that at some point the glide ratio becomes so shallow that you are now flying versus falling, such as with a glider aircraft. But wingsuiters haven't achieved that level of efficiency.

Actually in flare, we have reached that point. But the forward speed, timing and method of stopping are the obstacles. The vertical speed is the ONE thing that isnt.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[Trae 1]

in reply to " Everyone is thinking about this in terms of current technology. It wasn't so long ago that what wingsuit fliers are doing now seemed impossible. There are many amazing things to come. Give it some time and it will happen. "
................................................................

I believe it can be done with current aerodynamic technology just not with the current wingsuits.

The 'landing a wingsuit on flat ground' issue mainly rotates around wing efficiency and flaring characteristics, things current wingsuits don't do very well.

To effectively flare a wingsuit for repeated landings it is highly likely that some form of high-lift device will have to be used.
The devices may include T.E . flaps, mid-chord slots and L.E.slats , flaps ..or a variety of permutations.

Fixing such devices to a ram air fabric wingsuit is problematic.
Another disadvantage for ram air wingsuits is that when flying at lower speeds (eg during an extended flare ) , the ram air pressure will be less capable of maintaining the desired aerofoil shape.

As to the effect of high lift devices:
As per attachment a plain Clark Y wing (1st at top left) demonstrates a max. lift coefficient (CLmax) of 1.291 at 15 degrees angle of attack(aoa).
(all wing section data from 'Theory of Wing Sections' by Ira H.Abbott and Albert E. Von Doenhoff)

The highest CLmax in the table is 2.600 at 20 degrees aoa (2nd from bottom right ,for a wing with L.E. slat, a slotted flap and a rear chord slot.)

That's TWICE the max lift, although the min coefficient of drag (CDmin) doubles as well.
This increase in drag as the lift increases is a desirable characteristic and will be very handy when slowing down wingsuit landing speeds.
.
By adding a flap the clark Y wing gives CLmax of 1.950 at 12 degrees angle of attack (topright).
So by adding a flap the clark Y wing can produce about 50% more lift .

It seems likely to me that the best combination will be a slotted t.e.flap combined with a l.e.slat.(5th from bottom right)
This combination ( on a clark Y wing ) gives a CLmax of 2.261 at 19 degrees aoa.

By adding the complication of a rear chord slot (2nd from bottom right) the CLmax climbs to 2.600 at 20 degrees aoa.

That's about twice as much lift as the wing without flaps, slats or slots.

Of course this data is for a solid wing .
It may be some time before fabric wingsuits attain the required wing efficiences for a safe(ish) landing on flat ground.

[jonstark 8]

Quote

Everyone is thinking about this in terms of current technology. It wasn't so long ago that what wingsuit fliers are doing now seemed impossible. There are many amazing things to come. Give it some time and it will happen.

Maybe so. We were gonna land a 150 way all wearing Kruger's Balloon Suits. We chickened out. Too much pressure on the first to lose a grip. Look where we are now. There's still a lot of pressure on the first to lose a grip on a 150 way but we're no closer to landing it.

[billvon 2,384]

>If you're falling towards the earth, that's freefall.

So people under canopy are in freefall? I think most canopy pilots would disagree.

>I suppose you can argue that at some point the glide ratio becomes so shallow
>that you are now flying versus falling, such as with a glider aircraft. But
>wingsuiters haven't achieved that level of efficiency.

Sure they have. A fair number of wingsuiters have flown in formation with canopy pilots. If glide ratio defines freefalling vs flying, and canopy pilots are flying instead of freefalling, then so are wingsuiters.

[popsjumper 2]

This whole idea of landing a wingsuit...

On the one hand, I like to see it happen.

On the other, it scares the livin' crap out of me that several people are going to hurt and killed making the attempts.

All in all, I'd rather not see any attempts made just for that reason if for no other.

Call me pussy if you like and I'll take it like a man.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billvon 2,384]

>On the other, it scares the livin' crap out of me that several people are going to
>hurt and killed making the attempts.

Yep. There was a stretch of time where someone got killed on nearly every bigway record attempt, almost like clockwork. You'd sign up for them wondering if you'd be the one this time. Fortunately with time we got better at doing them safely. This may have to go through a similar learning curve.

[ElectricFetus 0]

yeah it's me, the troublemaker that started all this.....

someone awhile ago mentioned a water landing.

what about the possibility of getting close to the water, and start trailing something in the water that would bleed off speed, gradually acting as a brake? mind you i'm NOT saying "an anchor", as we can agree, going from near terminal to zero would ruin your whole day.

i picture a LONG narrow pool, maybe 50 yards x 300 yards x say 4 feet deep?

make your approach, release your trailer, and if you're good, come to a stand up landing.

[billvon 2,384]

>what about the possibility of getting close to the water, and start trailing
>something in the water that would bleed off speed, gradually acting as a
>brake?

You mean like your belly?

>i picture a LONG narrow pool, maybe 50 yards x 300 yards x say 4 feet deep?

I'd picture, like, a big lake with some styrofoam beads floating on the water. Much cheaper than building a pool, and much easier to hit. A zero wind day would be critical. Glassy water has much higher drag _and_ won't beat the crap out of you. (It's amazing how much punishment even mildly choppy water can deliver.)

[robinheid 0]

Quote

This whole idea of landing a wingsuit...

On the one hand, I like to see it happen.

On the other, it scares the livin' crap out of me that several people are going to hurt and killed making the attempts.

All in all, I'd rather not see any attempts made just for that reason if for no other.

Call me pussy if you like and I'll take it like a man.

pussy.

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."

[Blamey 0]

To me the obvious choice for this has always been to try land on a hill with snow. Speed skiers travel at speeds of over 125MPH, so there seems to be a solution there. Figuring out how to transition to a belly ride on the snow would be tough but probably easier than building a ramp.

These guys look like they could touch down and maybe survive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ZZ0Lra4kc

[mjosparky 3]

The big hurdle I see is transitioning from his head first position to a feet first position. Speed skiers land a set of skies allowing their legs to absorb some of the impact. If he gives up that wing suit for just an instant he will be a rock. Look at his decent rate on the video between :40 and :50.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

many years ago i recall seeing what amounted to a giant nylon stocking that was intended for use as an emergency exit from skyscrapers. you jumped in and it was tight enough on you to control your fall to the ground, but flexible enough to take just about any shape.

If you notice they are not very popular. In fact I can’t think of a single one in service. After several test periods it was found out that thin people fell like a rock and fat people would receive up to 3rd. degree burns from friction generate by the tube. Even using trained personnel they were not safe above 5 or 6 floors. That put the people trapped within reach of aerial ladders and rescue buckets.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[fasted3 0]

Quote

yeah it's me, the troublemaker that started all this.....

someone awhile ago mentioned a water landing.

what about the possibility of getting close to the water, and start trailing something in the water that would bleed off speed, gradually acting as a brake? mind you i'm NOT saying "an anchor", as we can agree, going from near terminal to zero would ruin your whole day.

i picture a LONG narrow pool, maybe 50 yards x 300 yards x say 4 feet deep?

make your approach, release your trailer, and if you're good, come to a stand up landing.

That was me with the water landing. I do think that the proper sky slope is also a possibility, but as far as a guy going out and doing wingsuit landings on a routine basis, water is the way to go.
Yes, a lake on a smooth day.
Yes, some water anchors, attached to the leg straps, so as not to tear off a leg.
Similar to a drag chute in drag racing, deployed either at near contact, or to satisfy the purests, only after contact.
Either way is survivable, IMO.
Water can be hard, yes.
But it ain't rock.
I've swan dived into water from 90 feet.
Try that into rock.
People belly flop frin 33 feet, That's about 20 MPH.
Modern suits can surpass this with sufficient forward speed. Ground effect may help. Dive and flair.
Flairing, even stalling a wingsuit kills a lot of forward speed. You have to land it on your chest, so some padding is necessary. Even a keel to maintain heading.
Some arm extensions?
So we are talking about 20 mph vertical and say 80 mph forward.
Do-able.
Skip like a rock.
Hope for the best.
Here's a thought: It would be possible to arieate a large expanse of the lake. I think I could hit it...
But I may not want to try it at all.
I bet someone will do it, and I think it will happen sooner rather than later.
Heck, for enough dough, I'd try it myself.
PS: You probably don't have enough,

But what do I know?

[Butters 0]

It's fun reading all of the ideas ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch