Andrewnewell 0 #76 March 2, 2008 Thankyou very much for better illustrating my point with your photo edit by the way. As you have shown, this is very different to the atmo diagram. Im sorry but I am unable to counter any argument based on your calculations as I am uneducated in this particular feild. thanks for the input though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWPoul 1 #77 March 3, 2008 Quote I didnt know that. Interesting stuff. Quote To get horisontal speed in freefall you need the lift So if you have the horizontal speed - you have created the lift! period... Is it just me or does that make no sense. Im sorry I dont have a degree in physics or anything but from what I can gather you are saying that you need lift inorder to get horizontal speed? right. well OK, how do you explain fast horizontal movement in the headown position, is the headown flyer creating lift to make horizontal movement? Actually it is not necessary to have a physics degree to understand this... Just definition what the Lift Force is and simple logicAgain: Lift is a component of Full Aerodynamic Force perpendicular to the relative wind Another component of AF is a Drag, which always parallel to the relative wind. So in sustained nonpowered flight/freefall we have three possible to obtain forces: Gravity, Drag and Lift. Gravity and Drag is always here and only lift can be = 0 But if Lift = 0 you have only two forces which directed exactly opposite to each other: Gravity (downward) and Drag (upward) and you falling straight down. So, until you create a perpendicular component of force (which is the LIFT by definition!) you cannot move horizontal at all! Yes in HD your moving horizontal mean, that you have created the Lift Force! Again Lift Force isn't that force, that lift you up, it's a force, that moving you perpendicular to the relative wind! And only in level flight (usually powered) Lift act like many people think it's should always act - "lifting" the plane straight up... Hope this help:) P/S By the way, if you look at the blade of a prop, (which actually provide a horizontal force and speed to our jumpships) you'll find that it very like a wingAnd exactly the Lift Force of blades push (or pull) the plane forward! And this Lift Force directed horizontal, not upwardWhy drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
solovinofly 0 #78 March 3, 2008 OK, you define lift as any horizontal movement, than of course you are right. Atmonauts for sure are covering horizontal distances. I argue that besides the primary movement (obviously downwards) one can move forward, sideways and backwards by only deflecting air (changing the attack angle) and not using (a significant amount of) lift. That’s why I say that lift is not the only condition that can move falling things horizontally. In Atmonauti deflection of air by far outranges the effect of lift in the forward movement. The horizontal movement in atmonauti can be amazing and very efficient, but still its to romantic to relate this sensation to (a significant amount of) lift. In 60-70 sec we go down 3 KM. In my definition you can’t speak of a relevant lift force. It’s quite an efficient deflection of air. Quote Quote Again Lift Force isn't that force, that lift you up, it's a force, that moving you perpendicular to the relative wind! Right, lift force works perpendicular to the relative wind. So (diagonal) up, not straight forward or (diagonal) down. Forward movement can also be: only deflection of air or; the result of an external power source (jet)engine. Let me guess: you don’t agree Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWPoul 1 #79 March 3, 2008 Quote OK, you define lift as any horizontal movement NoFirst: It's not Me, who define what the Lift force is... it's physic... I just don't know any other definition of LF, do you?:) Second: LF is not "Horizontal movement" and even not the "horizontal Force", LF is a Perpendicular to Relative Wind Force! But for us as falling objects it's mean that at the begining LF is horizontal (later as soon as we get some Horizontal sped the LF will be directed forward and upward, coz relative wind will be not vertical) and there is impossible to get any horizontal movement without creating some Lift (or without engines). Quote Right, lift force works perpendicular to the relative wind. So (diagonal) up, not straight forward or (diagonal) down. Forward movement can also be: only deflection of air or; the result of an external power source (jet)engine. Let me guess: you don’t agree Ha-ha no camrade, I am Absolutely agree with you on this statement coz it's absolutely correct!Of course LF in the pic directed diagonal, not straight forward Of course this forward movement can be caused just by deflecting the air (since ALL aerodynamical forces caused by this reason) which create LF And of course also this forward movement can be the result of an external power source (jet)engine Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mciocca 0 #80 March 3, 2008 Hi Andrewnewell, The image you posted is countered by the attached pics showing more efficient forms of atmo. As with anything, you can fly less or more efficiently. It does happen that atmo formations when flown less efficiently/too flat, that the forward speeds and relative wind over the airfoil slows, and enter a stalled flight path. It happens, but you cannot judge a canopy on a stalled (flared) photo on landing ;0)The Sky's Our Playground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mciocca 0 #81 March 3, 2008 As with anything new there's always going to be the unbelievable aspect to it, and its normal to question these statements as true and factual and ask for evidence. Like when we first discovered the world was not flat, but spherical. New terms in skydiving such as "custom tube". "lift" etc are going to be contested initially, as these are completely new terms, unlike anything we've ever know about freefall/skydiving. That is why we are taking our time to discuss and present these principles to the skydiving family (our community). We strongly believe that this is to the benefit of our sport in general, and will go a long way in bringing new people to our sport and/or retain the ones who are growing tired of throwing money at difficult forms of our much loved sport - 3d freefall being one of these (i want to refer to freeflying, as 3-dimensional freefall). The reason for coining this term is there is way too much confusion in our sport where everything is now falling under the auspice of Freeflying. Everything. Even FS, Wingsuiting and Atmonauti. Soon we'll probably see the first signs of "canopy piloting is aslo freeflying...". Im going to focus on this term again: 3-dimesnional freefall, to include head up, head down, back, belly and transitions in 3 axis. We're falling. Thats it. We're utilising the relative wind we achieve in freefall due to the gravitational force on our bodies to do so. We dont even attempt to fly. So lets take the fly out of freefly for now. Free-fall is actually more on the money. And I LOVE FREEFLYING. So im not dissing it. We teach this to all our first jumpers (the relative wind is FROM BELOW etc etc). Once we agree that the rekative wind in Atmo is not "from below" as with freefall, we can start talking about new forms of skydiving such as Atmonauti and Wingsuiting, which are not classical freefall disciplines whatsoever, and where the "tube" refers to relative wind NOT hitting our bodies perpendicular to the ground. These "new" disciplines require a brand new set of skills, understanding and techniques for them to be efficient and done safely. There are a new set of safety standards which are not applicable in freefall down the tube. We need to recognize the need to formalise these new disciplines for these reasons, and not confuse the issue with lift/spilling air etc etc. The overriding point of departure should be to differentiate and implement safety standards and procedures specific to horizontal 3d travel. Once we agree that freefall is one thing, and that generating lift (whether large or small amounts of it) is another - we can start to appreciate the beauty of Atmonauti in what it affords us - longer ff times (we exit miles from the dz), we use our bodies as airfoils and do our damndest to overcome the effects of gravity. For the first time we fly as humans in a controlled manner, even if not indefinitely. And not only do we fly, but we can ALL build large linked formtions, transition around 3 axis into different body positions that require a true understanding of lift/airfoil shapes while doing so, it is slow and safe, easy to get into and challenging to grow into for those that love a challenge (as in feet first atmo). Atmo in a shell: a) Its very dynamic b) requires a new skill set b) We create a "custom" tube at the selected angle of flight which for the first time we as skydivers can control, c) It greatly increases freefall time d) You're flying, not merely falling, and its possible without the use of strap-on equipment! Just your body, and thats it! The best form of evidence is for you to try it out, and when you're hitting speeds of 100 mph, 90 mph, 80mph you'll be amazed. All this while doing multiple docks and transitions in a multitude of different axis. This is whats important to me.The Sky's Our Playground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
solovinofly 0 #82 March 3, 2008 Quote Quote is impossible to get any horizontal movement without creating some Lift (or without engines). Yep and we are almost there camrade! There is just this one thing: who was there first: the chicken or the egg?? Nice question for a new thread after this one closes down… Lift in the air is a result of forward movement. Therefore the initial force that causes forward movement can’t be lift. Angular deflection makes you go forwards. And that can create some lift. This lift force (humans falling through the sky) is not strong in relation to the force caused by deflection, drag and gravity though. Say I’m right. Got to catch a plane in a few hours. Byby Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWPoul 1 #83 March 3, 2008 Quote Yep and we are almost there camrade! There is just this one thing: who was there first: the chicken or the egg?? Nice question for a new thread after this one closes down… It's funny, but for this qestions there is an clear answer too: The egg was firstHere is a formula: joking(seriously the eggs was here millions years before than first chicken). Back to the Force and Movement... It's even more clear The force should came first coz the force provide accseleration to start movement (or change of movement) and keep movement in resisting environment. It's a Law!So if you fall straight you have to deflect air to create the LF to start the horizontal movement and keep/increasing horizontal speed Quote Lift in the air is a result of forward movement. Lift is the force from reaction of relative wind, no mater from which derection (relative to the earth) this wind coming. Quote Therefore the initial force that causes forward movement can’t be lift . Again: there is only two Aerodinamical forces: Lift and Drag Drag obviously can't move you forward so you obviously need the lift Quote Angular deflection makes you go forwards Yes! coz it makes the Lift that move you forward! Quote Got to catch a plane in a few hours. Byby Have a nice flight - let the Lift Force be with you!Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hurricano 0 #84 March 3, 2008 I am sorry to have to speak up but i very much believe that you are not showing the proper reverence to Marco Tiezzi Marco taught me from the beginning, when i finished PAC(like your AFF) he took me on his great 15 way atmonauti jumps. Despite all of the problems, no matter what happened, no matter how big the group he would let me jump with him and his friends. Atmonauti is to me like a faith, no other discipline would an instructor let you come on big way jumps from having only 10 jumps. No other discipline lets you really fly. For this i think atmonauti is not just another skydiving discipline but a different sport, not skydiving anymore. You are another thief that tries to steal the knowlege of Atmonauti, like Babylon(yes i know, Marco has told me all about them too) you may be able to fly very well but but not showing proper respect you show you are another thief. This technical argument is stupid, Marco knows more than anyone else, just look at his website with many beautifull pictures. How dare you say you know more, all you are proving is how arrogant you are in thinking you know more. All of this technical debate is untrue. I know in my heart that lift is real. Like Marc Arnold and Tristan and many other ex ATP members who have turned against Marco you should just shut up. I am sorry to have to speak up, but i could not be silent any more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewnewell 0 #85 March 3, 2008 Hi Mciocca, Thanks for posting the 'Efficent' flight pictures. Funnily enough all of them have been taken above or below the formation and therefore do not accurately show that the flyers in these photos are any more efficient than the flyers in the pictures I posted. Please post some similar pictures taken from the side where we can compare the angle of the flyer to the trajectory highlighted by the smoke trail and the horizon. That would be what I consider a good counter argument. Im thinking they’re gonna be few and far between? QuoteOnce we agree that the rekative wind in Atmo is not "from below" as with freefall, we can start talking about new forms of skydiving such as Atmonauti and Wingsuiting, which are not classical freefall disciplines whatsoever, and where the "tube" refers to relative wind NOT hitting our bodies perpendicular to the ground. Hmmm, I thought that both myself and NWpoul have shown with our last few posts that the relative wind in most cases is still coming from below albeit at a slight angle. QuoteThat is why we are taking our time to discuss and present these principles to the skydiving family (our community). We strongly believe that this is to the benefit of our sport in general, and will go a long way in bringing new people to our sport and/or retain the ones who are growing tired of throwing money at difficult forms of our much loved sport - 3d freefall being one of these (i want to refer to freeflying, as 3-dimensional freefall). Without a doubt the exploration of Angled flight and Atmonauti is only beneficial. I would say however That growing tired of throwing time and money at the difficult forms is not a good reason to move on to angled flight. I guess its a personal thing but I would probably put that down to a lack of perseverance. QuoteThe reason for coining this term is there is way too much confusion in our sport where everything is now falling under the auspice of Freeflying. Freeflying is exactly what its says and is a very simple concept. A flyer is free to fly in any angle, position or orientation. The term is broad and encompasses many different aspects of bodyflight, including Atmonauti. The term freeflying is another term for 'the bigger picture'. Anyways call it what you will, its just a name. QuoteThe best form of evidence is for you to try it out, and when you're hitting speeds of 100 mph, 90 mph, 80mph you'll be amazed. All this while doing multiple docks and transitions in a multitude of different axis. I think you mean explanation, but again youd be wrong about gaining a better understanding of what is actually going on. Ask your self, are we that accurately calibrated? not really. do we suffer from emotional responses? I'd say so. Both of these human elements lead me to one conclusion, we are biased! You obviously have a great amount of passion for the discipline which I have great respect for. personally It's important for me to remember not to let my own passion for the sport cloud my judgement. This is what is important to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewnewell 0 #86 March 3, 2008 Thats a pretty good example emotional response?Slightly Biased me thinks? Dude, Chill. this particular post is opening peoples minds. from which ever side of the table your sitting on, its surely better to discuss these things so that we can learn more about Atmonauti?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vins 0 #87 March 3, 2008 Quoteto claim that he and he alone 'invented' angled flight is vague and difficult to substantiate. When we're talking about inventing angled flight what do we mean? do we mean he was the very first person to ever fly in an angle? Do we mean that he and he alone devised a complete theory which spurned the development of the activity?or something else... No dude, I mean Marco Tiezzi was the first human that one day, searching to improve his traking to be more efficient, occasionally he descovered the angled flight. He practiced in secret per years (1998-2000) this technique with Gigliola Borgnis and Marco Manna and then, when he fell ready, presented this discover in world wide. Finally Marco and Gi teached Atmonauti to many professionals as FlyBoyz, Babylon, etc. He wrote this story in all details in a long article publicated on 2000 in Paramag and Spazio Verticale. He wrote as he descover de angle, he wrote as he teached it to his friend. Easy and simple to understand. No one wrote something different or debated this statement. I think, once again, that you talk for yourself. Let's talk these professionals and don't let your supposition talking for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fedykin 0 #88 March 3, 2008 Right.... Im not too sure how to awnser this mate, mmmmm. If you've had lots of fun and a great time from Tiezzi than thats great, if you dont enjoy what your doing then whats the point eh? I would make the point that i don't think its the best idea safety wise for a post AFF student to come on big ways, but thats the call of the LO on the day, as long as no-one gets hurt and everyone learns a bit, then great. Its not a practice i advocate but again, thats Marco's call. If Atmo has become as quasi religion to you, then great. Thief? Im not too sure how to respond to that! This stuff is all in the public domain and i feel that by circulating an open debate and the technical intricacies is postive for all parties. It keeps aspects of the sport from becoming a 'black art', just like how freeflying used to be, not many really understood what was going on, so de-engineering problems with jumps wasnt possible. This trial and error methodology just slows everyone down massively. i think the most important note i can put is this. it does seem interesting to me that the model that Tiezzi uses is technically incorrect. It is interesting that the person who claims ownership and the discovery of this endeavor has some very big holes in a complete theory of angled flight. It is also very interesting that random individuals like myself and andy newell and marc arnold etc... all appear to have a better grasp of the physics involved than the supposed inventor. I guess to some people this could seem like an argument of science vs religion. I think that both can exist side by side in a complementary fashion. Im arguing pure science and in that sense, there are a few people out there that have a patchy understanding of what they claim to teach. Ive never claimed to know everything and the limits of human understanding. If you and Marco have an issue with Babylon then take it up with them. If you'd like to know why I left the ATP club then PM me. I think ive been pretty restrained in not circulating some of the problems i had with some personalities. To be honest the main reason why i havent done so i because i really like the owner and pilot of Skydive Marche, Illario-he really is a nice, funny guy(apart from the fact that he eats potatoe chips with Brunello). If other people voted with thier feet and quit ATP then thats their perrogative, though i don't believe that I signed any argeement to give away my critical independent mindset. You seriously need to relax! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mciocca 0 #89 March 3, 2008 No, there are not few and far in between pics as you say..... There are many examples of this.. ;0) Here are some more pics if you like. PS Look also at the ribbons and the direction of the ribbons in relation to trajectory.Please note of course that in atmo the point is not to fly at maximum efficiency and speed, as this would mean flying with as little drag as possible, whereby arms/legs etc cannot be used for docks and links. The intermediate speed is chosen which allows for forward speed changes in the direction of flight, i.e. slowing down with more "arms/legs" and speeding up with less "arms/legs", thus a more efficient form of flight is achievable when high speed and low drag configurations are taken up flying in proximity only. The Sky's Our Playground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mciocca 0 #90 March 3, 2008 ...."Hmmm, I thought that both myself and NWpoul have shown with our last few posts that the relative wind in most cases is still coming from below albeit at a slight angle".... I dont think NWpoul would agree with you since what you're saying here is that we do not have relative wind striking the head first and breaking over the body? If you're saying that i think you'd be very wrong, as we utilise this relative wind each time we do atmo, and it is clearly felt. Maybe NWpoul would like to comment on this. I seriously think its time for you to come and do some atmo and see for yourself... ;0) Id love for you to come along and join us. You may well change your mind ...."Freeflying is exactly what its says and is a very simple concept"... You must appreciate that for years when freeflying was down the tube (perpendicular to the ground) that we were not flying whatsoever. It was indeed the incorrect term in my humble opinion as it suggested to a novice that we were flying when in fact we were falling. i agree with the discription that atmonauti is freeflying in 3d. However it is the use of the term flying (in free"flying") that i think clouds the point in that we are falling when we do so. In recent times all aspects of skydiving have joined the freeflying camp to include atmonauti. Thats ok. The problem here is that with our current progressions in AE/FF it does not take into account flight/movement across the ground and the challenges/differences this poses to include flight paths/body techniques etc. To include Atmo in AE would mean that it could be coached using the same progression structure, which it cannot. It requires a new set of skills and understanding. I just think its time we separate falling down the tube with flying in a custom tube (lets call it movement across and in relation to the ground), and use the correct terminology now that times have progressed. The Sky's Our Playground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mciocca 0 #91 March 3, 2008 ***It is also very interesting that random individuals like myself and andy newell and marc arnold etc... all appear to have a better grasp of the physics involved than the supposed inventor. QuoteWow bro, that has got to be the single most amazing claim i've seen you post, and you've posted quite a number. I think you've just made it into the skygods journal. Congratulations. PS Badmouthing and disrespecting your fellow community members is NOT a good idea bro. And you just keep at it. You simply wont watch your "mouth" will you? You've become way too personal in your attacks, hiding behind your incompetencies.The Sky's Our Playground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWPoul 1 #92 March 3, 2008 Hi! Greate pics!On most of them hovewer it's hard to see the angle between body and the relative wind but on these: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=96826; http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=96825; Clearly shown that body meet the relative wind by noticeable angle. Yes it is possible to get the Lift with AOA=0 even for such aerodynamic noncense like human body:) But it's seems, that this body position will be too inefficient for your angle flight. I believe, that most effective AOA for human body is about 45 dergee as we can see it in a tracking jumps But it's if we mean by "effectiveness" only L/D... For Atmonaut it can be and it seems it is - more effective not max L/D but be able to perform such cool things as you do and shown us So you find that AOA less than 45 degree (but very unlike that zero) work better for ya, and thats greate:) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mciocca 0 #93 March 3, 2008 Heya, I agree that 45 degrees is about optimum, which is what Marco Tiezzi and Atmo has been preaching for almost a decade now so Im glad to agree ;0) I think it better to refer to angled flight as Atmo in order to reduce the amount of confusion going on, since this is what was developed and presented to the skydiving community. Tracking is purely the SPILLING of air with no flight as such, and whereas atmo teaches the flyer to look towards the rear setting up in front in order to achieve the 45 degrees we refer to. This, in a nutshell is Atmo, not tracking. I do feel that sufficient pictures have already been posted clearly showing direction of travel and the opposite direction of trailing material, so i dont feel we need to rehash this one. I think we can pretty much leave it to the opinion of individual jumpers now The Sky's Our Playground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWPoul 1 #94 March 3, 2008 Quote I agree that 45 degrees is about optimum, which is what Marco Tiezzi and Atmo has been preaching for almost a decade now so Im glad to agree ;0) I just want to clarify, that I mean AOA ie Angle between Body and relative wind, not between body an horizon:) Quote I think it better to refer to angled flight as Atmo in order to reduce the amount of confusion going on, since this is what was developed and presented to the skydiving community. Ok, I just though that I haven't enought right to speak regarding Atmo coz I don't feel that understand it's enough:) Quote Tracking is purely the SPILLING of air with no flight as such, and whereas atmo teaches the flyer to look towards the rear setting up in front in order to achieve the 45 degrees we refer to. This, in a nutshell is Atmo, not tracking. I beg to differ here... The Lift produced by tracking and atmo has the same nature... May bejust technique and feeling are different (but you can say that it's all about feelling :) ) But... IMO it's just like sex If one came to his girl at front while other came to his girl from backside does it mean, that one haven't sex coz came to the girl from wrong side?? So I defenetly don't think that tracking is not flying As well as that Lift produced by human body isn't a lift in compare to the planes coz the relative wind hit the body by different angle or even side:) P.S. %$#@I hope my terrible english Don't prevent to understand what I mean to sayWhy drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gigliola 0 #95 March 3, 2008 Hey hurricano, aka Piers Roberts, aka fedkin, aka Piercos Tiezzers ..... having fun with this game? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites fedykin 0 #96 March 3, 2008 Come again....? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewnewell 0 #97 March 3, 2008 Hi there again, Yes as NW has stated it is difficult to appreciate the trajectory from most of the photos you have provided.Im not sure a couple of feet of ribbon is that great of an indicator of trajectory and these photos do little to disprove what has been covered by myself and NW. Maybe you can see something I can’t, like you say people can make their own minds up about that. Oh and I do agree with your statement about efficiency, the faster we go the flatter the trajectory and subsequent smoke trail. So yes, at a steep enough angles the Atmo (taken from the diagram) model would become correct however flying in either that type of angle or at that speed isn’t, like you say, what Atmo is about really. QuoteI dont think NWpoul would agree with you since what you're saying here is that we do not have relative wind striking the head first and breaking over the body? If you're saying that i think you'd be very wrong, as we utilise this relative wind each time we do atmo, and it is clearly felt. Maybe NWpoul would like to comment on this. Nope I am saying when in either of the standard Atmo body posititions (belly, back), with the head being the lowest point, air would certainly hitting that first. Why? Well that’s because it is the lowest point and the relative wind is still coming from below albeit at a slight angle. I agree an amount is deflected over the top of the head but the majority of it is being deflected by the underside of the flyer. The relative wind is not coming in line with the flyer as on the Atmo diagrams, It is still much more similar to the adjoining diagram explaining tracking. the main difference is that the head is lower, creating an anchor point and leading edge, this obviously shifts the Cof G and enables more efficent flight. The smoke photos show the trajectory and therefore show the where the relative wind is coming from, if you look at most atmo flyers the head is the lowest point and therefore does act as the leading edge, however the rest of the torso and body, in most cases is relatively flat in comparison and creates angular deflection. This is most defiantly a personal thing, as we are all different sizes and weights so I guess everyone has to find their own unique angle and body position for maximum efficiency. I will agree that I believe the angle of 45 deg to be the most efficent for horizontal flight as far as an unaided flyer is concerned. QuoteI seriously think its time for you to come and do some atmo and see for yourself... ;0) Id love for you to come along and join us. You may well change your mind Ive done a fair bit, but Thaks for the offer, never too old to learn something new. Right, guys, this is my last post on the subject as I feel Im just gonna be going round in circles if I continue. Ive certainly got nowt else to add. I would say that despite the silliness here and there, the topic has made me question things in a different light and has to some extent altered my views in regards to Atmo and other forms of Angled flight. So thanks for the enlightenment. have safe flights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mciocca 0 #98 March 3, 2008 Hey bro you just put a big smile on my face....cheers to you for comparing skydiving to sex bro ;0) he he... On a serious note, what I'm trying to put across is that tracking and atmo differ considerably in terms of technique, set up, ability to dock, ability to do transitions on 3 axis etc. In the sky we often find that students/new comers to atmo revert to tracking when they cannot get the atmo correct, and fall away from the formation not to be seen again. Im also referring to experienced skydivers who do much tracking. Only when they grasp atmo and set up correctly and are able to work with the relative wind from the head towards the feet are they able to fly with the formation. This is the most common problem with first time atmo skyflyers, reverting back to familiar tracking positions and falling away and behind the formation.The Sky's Our Playground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWPoul 1 #99 March 3, 2008 Quote On a serious note, what I'm trying to put across is that tracking and atmo differ considerably in terms of technique, set up, ability to dock, ability to do transitions on 3 axis etc. I believe, that no one doubt that Atmo is a quite different than track... in technique, in feeling and in target I think that all cunfusing and arguing is about point that Atmonauts produce the lift by a some special magic way, which can not be achive in track or other tehnique (and as I find out there many people who don't believe in Lift Force of human Body at all) When Lift which you produce is the exact same nature as lift from a track... Your techinique, the way you use that force and all other which is essetial of Atmo IMO quite obviously different and it is cool!Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mciocca 0 #100 March 3, 2008 ***the relative wind is still coming from below albeit at a slight angle. I agree an amount is deflected over the top of the head but the majority of it is being deflected by the underside of the flyer. Quote Bro, I have to admit that most of the time when i read these posts Im having a laugh to myself, and wondering how it will feel when one day people look back on the silly things they write as fact when in reality they have no clue... Reading your statement above made me realize that you have no understanding of Atmo. The suggestion that the relative wind is from below with a slight amount deflecting around the head is very far from the truth, and is clearly something only someone who has no atmo experience would say. Its not your fault, its just that you dont know any better since you either havent done atmo or were unable to grasp atmo correctly, leaving you with the wrong 'experience'. Whatever the case, you must speak for yourself when you say that in atmo the relative wind strikes you in the face and deflects over your head... I'd say that sounds A LOT like TRACKING ;0) For all the students out there reading this, in freefall and in skyflying we are all very aware of the relative wind which we utlise to do the cool stuff we do. In atmo, the relative wind is from the head towards the feet (when done correctly), as thousands of atmonauts know well. When attempts are made at confusing and clouding the issue, i recommend trying it for yourself, read up about it or get to your closest instructor. The proof is in the footage, in the experience... and in the smiles all round... The Sky's Our Playground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
NWPoul 1 #92 March 3, 2008 Hi! Greate pics!On most of them hovewer it's hard to see the angle between body and the relative wind but on these: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=96826; http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=96825; Clearly shown that body meet the relative wind by noticeable angle. Yes it is possible to get the Lift with AOA=0 even for such aerodynamic noncense like human body:) But it's seems, that this body position will be too inefficient for your angle flight. I believe, that most effective AOA for human body is about 45 dergee as we can see it in a tracking jumps But it's if we mean by "effectiveness" only L/D... For Atmonaut it can be and it seems it is - more effective not max L/D but be able to perform such cool things as you do and shown us So you find that AOA less than 45 degree (but very unlike that zero) work better for ya, and thats greate:) Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mciocca 0 #93 March 3, 2008 Heya, I agree that 45 degrees is about optimum, which is what Marco Tiezzi and Atmo has been preaching for almost a decade now so Im glad to agree ;0) I think it better to refer to angled flight as Atmo in order to reduce the amount of confusion going on, since this is what was developed and presented to the skydiving community. Tracking is purely the SPILLING of air with no flight as such, and whereas atmo teaches the flyer to look towards the rear setting up in front in order to achieve the 45 degrees we refer to. This, in a nutshell is Atmo, not tracking. I do feel that sufficient pictures have already been posted clearly showing direction of travel and the opposite direction of trailing material, so i dont feel we need to rehash this one. I think we can pretty much leave it to the opinion of individual jumpers now The Sky's Our Playground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWPoul 1 #94 March 3, 2008 Quote I agree that 45 degrees is about optimum, which is what Marco Tiezzi and Atmo has been preaching for almost a decade now so Im glad to agree ;0) I just want to clarify, that I mean AOA ie Angle between Body and relative wind, not between body an horizon:) Quote I think it better to refer to angled flight as Atmo in order to reduce the amount of confusion going on, since this is what was developed and presented to the skydiving community. Ok, I just though that I haven't enought right to speak regarding Atmo coz I don't feel that understand it's enough:) Quote Tracking is purely the SPILLING of air with no flight as such, and whereas atmo teaches the flyer to look towards the rear setting up in front in order to achieve the 45 degrees we refer to. This, in a nutshell is Atmo, not tracking. I beg to differ here... The Lift produced by tracking and atmo has the same nature... May bejust technique and feeling are different (but you can say that it's all about feelling :) ) But... IMO it's just like sex If one came to his girl at front while other came to his girl from backside does it mean, that one haven't sex coz came to the girl from wrong side?? So I defenetly don't think that tracking is not flying As well as that Lift produced by human body isn't a lift in compare to the planes coz the relative wind hit the body by different angle or even side:) P.S. %$#@I hope my terrible english Don't prevent to understand what I mean to sayWhy drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gigliola 0 #95 March 3, 2008 Hey hurricano, aka Piers Roberts, aka fedkin, aka Piercos Tiezzers ..... having fun with this game? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewnewell 0 #97 March 3, 2008 Hi there again, Yes as NW has stated it is difficult to appreciate the trajectory from most of the photos you have provided.Im not sure a couple of feet of ribbon is that great of an indicator of trajectory and these photos do little to disprove what has been covered by myself and NW. Maybe you can see something I can’t, like you say people can make their own minds up about that. Oh and I do agree with your statement about efficiency, the faster we go the flatter the trajectory and subsequent smoke trail. So yes, at a steep enough angles the Atmo (taken from the diagram) model would become correct however flying in either that type of angle or at that speed isn’t, like you say, what Atmo is about really. QuoteI dont think NWpoul would agree with you since what you're saying here is that we do not have relative wind striking the head first and breaking over the body? If you're saying that i think you'd be very wrong, as we utilise this relative wind each time we do atmo, and it is clearly felt. Maybe NWpoul would like to comment on this. Nope I am saying when in either of the standard Atmo body posititions (belly, back), with the head being the lowest point, air would certainly hitting that first. Why? Well that’s because it is the lowest point and the relative wind is still coming from below albeit at a slight angle. I agree an amount is deflected over the top of the head but the majority of it is being deflected by the underside of the flyer. The relative wind is not coming in line with the flyer as on the Atmo diagrams, It is still much more similar to the adjoining diagram explaining tracking. the main difference is that the head is lower, creating an anchor point and leading edge, this obviously shifts the Cof G and enables more efficent flight. The smoke photos show the trajectory and therefore show the where the relative wind is coming from, if you look at most atmo flyers the head is the lowest point and therefore does act as the leading edge, however the rest of the torso and body, in most cases is relatively flat in comparison and creates angular deflection. This is most defiantly a personal thing, as we are all different sizes and weights so I guess everyone has to find their own unique angle and body position for maximum efficiency. I will agree that I believe the angle of 45 deg to be the most efficent for horizontal flight as far as an unaided flyer is concerned. QuoteI seriously think its time for you to come and do some atmo and see for yourself... ;0) Id love for you to come along and join us. You may well change your mind Ive done a fair bit, but Thaks for the offer, never too old to learn something new. Right, guys, this is my last post on the subject as I feel Im just gonna be going round in circles if I continue. Ive certainly got nowt else to add. I would say that despite the silliness here and there, the topic has made me question things in a different light and has to some extent altered my views in regards to Atmo and other forms of Angled flight. So thanks for the enlightenment. have safe flights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mciocca 0 #98 March 3, 2008 Hey bro you just put a big smile on my face....cheers to you for comparing skydiving to sex bro ;0) he he... On a serious note, what I'm trying to put across is that tracking and atmo differ considerably in terms of technique, set up, ability to dock, ability to do transitions on 3 axis etc. In the sky we often find that students/new comers to atmo revert to tracking when they cannot get the atmo correct, and fall away from the formation not to be seen again. Im also referring to experienced skydivers who do much tracking. Only when they grasp atmo and set up correctly and are able to work with the relative wind from the head towards the feet are they able to fly with the formation. This is the most common problem with first time atmo skyflyers, reverting back to familiar tracking positions and falling away and behind the formation.The Sky's Our Playground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWPoul 1 #99 March 3, 2008 Quote On a serious note, what I'm trying to put across is that tracking and atmo differ considerably in terms of technique, set up, ability to dock, ability to do transitions on 3 axis etc. I believe, that no one doubt that Atmo is a quite different than track... in technique, in feeling and in target I think that all cunfusing and arguing is about point that Atmonauts produce the lift by a some special magic way, which can not be achive in track or other tehnique (and as I find out there many people who don't believe in Lift Force of human Body at all) When Lift which you produce is the exact same nature as lift from a track... Your techinique, the way you use that force and all other which is essetial of Atmo IMO quite obviously different and it is cool!Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mciocca 0 #100 March 3, 2008 ***the relative wind is still coming from below albeit at a slight angle. I agree an amount is deflected over the top of the head but the majority of it is being deflected by the underside of the flyer. Quote Bro, I have to admit that most of the time when i read these posts Im having a laugh to myself, and wondering how it will feel when one day people look back on the silly things they write as fact when in reality they have no clue... Reading your statement above made me realize that you have no understanding of Atmo. The suggestion that the relative wind is from below with a slight amount deflecting around the head is very far from the truth, and is clearly something only someone who has no atmo experience would say. Its not your fault, its just that you dont know any better since you either havent done atmo or were unable to grasp atmo correctly, leaving you with the wrong 'experience'. Whatever the case, you must speak for yourself when you say that in atmo the relative wind strikes you in the face and deflects over your head... I'd say that sounds A LOT like TRACKING ;0) For all the students out there reading this, in freefall and in skyflying we are all very aware of the relative wind which we utlise to do the cool stuff we do. In atmo, the relative wind is from the head towards the feet (when done correctly), as thousands of atmonauts know well. When attempts are made at confusing and clouding the issue, i recommend trying it for yourself, read up about it or get to your closest instructor. The proof is in the footage, in the experience... and in the smiles all round... The Sky's Our Playground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
