The111 0 #1 March 23, 2004 Just wondering what are the lowest (vertical) speeds you guys have seen on GTi's. I tried searching for this but couldn't find anything. I had an average of 59mph on my 10th flight this past weekend and looking at the graph peaked at 47mph in the middle of it. :) I'm just under 6ft tall and 160lb. I'm still learning where that sweet spot is so often when I get there within 5 seconds I've gone a bit too far and get unstable and have to take a bit of time to get my flight back... sometimes takes me 10-15 seconds to get back into pretty good flight after something sends me wobbling pretty bad. Can better fliers get to their "peak" faster?www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #2 March 23, 2004 Matt I've never flown a GTI but I can get a consistant 54-53 in both my classic and my S-3. If I'm solo I can bust into the upper or mid fourties on my S-3 ( which really isn't as tight as a real S-3 ). The S-3 just flys forward faster for the same vertical numbers. Protracs are a tool but they can be fooled the best method really is flying with some good friends regularly so you can compare performance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GroundZero 0 #3 March 23, 2004 what he said... I still can fly my slowest times in my classic... the Skyflyer can do the same, but i cover many more miles... Never underestimate the classic. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #4 March 23, 2004 On my best jumps I've had average speeds in the high 40's, most of the time I'm in the low 50's. This after about 15 jumps on my GTi. Anyway it's not the speed that matters, it's the amount of ground covered... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicknitro71 0 #5 March 23, 2004 QuoteAnyway it's not the speed that matters, it's the amount of ground covered... Skydiving: lowest speed seems to matter BASE: distance from the wall due to obvious reasonsMemento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #6 March 23, 2004 According to your profile you are 85lbs out the door? Is this right? www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gus 1 #7 March 23, 2004 Same here, averages in the upper 40s on a 'good' maxed out solo on my GTI. GusOutpatientsOnline.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #8 March 23, 2004 QuoteAccording to your profile you are 85lbs out the door? Is this right? Answered on Erno's behalf, since those in Australia are sleeping right now. Those would be Kilograms. The unit the rest of the world uses to measure mass. 85kg... or 187 pounds. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #9 March 23, 2004 Heh, thanks for explaining unit systems to me. Now I know why I struggled so hard with my engineering studies. Seriously though, the units in his profile are lbs/ft^2, that is why I asked. I figured your explanation was the case, but just wanted to make sure. There is a unit converter built into the WL calculator in your profile. www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #10 March 23, 2004 I'm just guessing. Erno visited with me for a time in South Africa before moving on to Oz, and he's from Finland. If I was from Finland, living in Oz and thinking in American... I just know I'd screw up somewhere! Most of us are simply accustomed to putting what we weigh in the box that says weight, without having to do the KG to Lbs conversion. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #11 March 23, 2004 Yeh, after 4 years of having to do all of my engineering homework in both unit systems, I *much* prefer metric and would gladly support the USA switching to it. Don't think it will happen though.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #12 March 23, 2004 QuoteThose would be Kilograms. The unit the rest of the world uses to measure mass Surely wingloading is a measure of pressure, or force per unit area NOT mass per unit area. It may seem a petty definition but i think I saw an experienced canopy pilot refer to the fact that wingloading increases during hp turns, downplanes etc as g increases. This is only possible with measures of force like pounds, Newtons etc. Kg does not work like this.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #13 March 23, 2004 QuoteSurely wingloading is a measure of pressure, or force per unit area NOT mass per unit area. It may seem a petty definition but i think I saw an experienced canopy pilot refer to the fact that wingloading increases during hp turns, downplanes etc as g increases. This is only possible with measures of force like pounds, Newtons etc. Kg does not work like this. True but in the skydiving world for purposes of comparison we use static wingloading. That being the weight, or mass suspended under the wing.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #14 March 23, 2004 Besides the fact that the unit system used in the USA is highly inefficient, the term "weight" as used by most people is actually a reference to mass. The pressure on your canopy is a function of the force and area, as you stated. Force depends on where you are flying the canopy (earth, most likely), and how you are flying it (static or dynamic). The term "wingloading" as used by skydivers is exit weight (mass) per wing area. If you want to know the force on the wing, and you're flying straight above the earth, multiply your WL by the earth's gravitational acceleration. If you're generating "g's" by turning or diving, multiply by that factor as well. QuoteThis is only possible with measures of force like pounds, Newtons etc. Kg does not work like this. Mass can "work like this", and pounds as you are thinking is probably a measure of mass (although there is also a pound-force, part of the inefficiency of our unit system).www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #15 March 23, 2004 Yeah, most people use weight as mass and usually it works but once we start changing values of g the distinction should be made. In imperial pounds are force (pounds thrust in jet engines etc), mass should be expressed in slugs (i think). In S.I. units Kg is ALWAYS mass, Newtons are force, therefore Kg's under the influence of g become Newtons (y'know what I mean). Ok for comparing different size canopies to make a choice for what size you should be jumping but imagine trying to explain to someone that in a spiral turn its not only increased airspeed that affects the response of the canopy but also g values. If Kg was your unit of WL then you would have to tell them that their mass was increasing as they turned. Its not, their weight (force expressed in Newtons under S.I.) is what is changing. I know it doesn't really matter but if WL values are converted to S.I. one day it should be correct (N/m^2). I only brought it up in the first place to highlight confusion about different units used in the WL equation. I'll stop hijacking the forum now, sorry. ps, can't wait to jump wingsuits, have to keep moving the jump numbers up....Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #16 March 24, 2004 I'm still guessing... Whenever I'm getting into discussions like this, I always think of birds. They have no understanding of physics, or the difference between weight and mass... and yet they fly quite well... tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jmfreefly 0 #17 March 24, 2004 QuoteOn my best jumps I've had average speeds in the high 40's, most of the time I'm in the low 50's. This after about 15 jumps on my GTi. Anyway it's not the speed that matters, it's the amount of ground covered... My best jumps have been mid 40s in my GTi. Haven't checked on my new S3. I have had spikes in the low 30s on my GTi as well. That being said, I am 'loading my wingsuit' that high. Anybody bother to calculate their Wingsuit loading? As for 'its not speed that matters' I would contend that it depends on what you are doing. I like flying real slow sometimes, and not worrying about distance covered. I think your point is 'long freefall' doesn't automatically equate to 'farthest flight'. j Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #18 March 24, 2004 QuoteI think your point is 'long freefall' doesn't automatically equate to 'farthest flight'. I have been told by a few of the best flyers that I know that duration does equate to distance. Anybody care to comment?www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jmfreefly 0 #19 March 24, 2004 Search some of the threads for this topic (glide ratio). j Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #20 March 25, 2004 Oops. What Tonto said. It's fixed now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
