0
yuri_base

Z-Experiments with V-2

Recommended Posts

The idea that originated with the inner tube is that it largely retains the outer rounded shape and also forms to the changing shape of the arms without any added work - just inflate it and go.

On the foam noodle - I have not found one that is the proper size. Good idea as well if you can locate the proper material, I had seen them in the stores but all to large a diameter for the arm wing. Do have some rigid insert prototypes in the mix but we start to add danger when adding rigid materials so be careful on test flights.

Would like to see what you find on the trailing edge wedge - seems to relate to deflection (minor) and more directly cleaning up the airflow/stream at the junction point of the wing and the body like you see on aircraft - mostly related to reducing drag. Our suits are very aerodynamically dirty and there are opportunities all over the place to improve. Just look at the rig area, risers, helmet/head and also at all the material in flight that is distorting on the body/legs etc. Some time ago there was a wingsuit pilot that was working on a tight/well fitted suit to reduce all that drag. A worthy direction, as creating lift is only one half of the concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also a foam insert could be carved to a complex shape easily.




When Pheonix first announce the V-1 I thought that this was exactly what Robi did with the leading edge foam ( described ). I couldn't wait to see how the leading edge would be kept from rotating on the "spar". I am happy with the non-profiled foam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last weekend I also experimented with positioning of the skipped tab on the bottom of the armwing (where main lift web goes through the wing). Skipping the 3rd tab (counting from shoulder) created huge wrinkles all over the wing. Skipped 4th tab and the shape was much smoother. However, the bottom surface in flight was still rough, with a big "rib" going from the skipped tab to the hand. There's a lot of flexibility in choosing the skipped tab. The main reason, however, is the poor fit of the suit, and lack of inflation in the arm wing. No problems like this in my Phantom. I'll experiment more!

Also, will experiment with sewing a piece of thicker, heavier material on the bottom of the armwing, to make it very smooth. Or maybe I'll cover it with hair and experiment with different shaves. ;)
Android+Wear/iOS/Windows apps:
L/D Vario, Smart Altimeter, Rockdrop Pro, Wingsuit FAP
iOS only: L/D Magic
Windows only: WS Studio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Yuri is on to something! Balancing a suit to peoples individual centers of gravity will increase performance. The way to do this, however, is to change the ratio of arm wing surface area to leg wing surface area. Unless a pilot is balanced on a fulcrum point it is very difficult to determine the exact C/G. Adding weight might give better results over an unbalanced suit, but tailoring suits to peoples individual C/G's will give better performance gains. I've designed a table just for this, but I'm still figuring out the formula to translate to surface area ratios.
BUY A WINGSUIT
My Website
Tony Suits
[url "http:/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good idea, Jeff, I've always wondered if human CG variance is significant enough to actually warrant something like this. For example, if a guy is scrawny enough up top, and fat enough at the bottom, will a Vampire (for example) work significantly less efficiently for him than it would for a guy of more average build? I'm not sure we can know the answer to this, especially since individual flying skill plays such a large part in the big picture.

Quote

I'm still figuring out the formula to translate to surface area ratios.



Well if you know where CG is, and where you intend CP (center of pressure) to be, it is simple geometry to balance the areas by wing profile. Also the body surface area is of importance.

Another thing to consider is that optimal surface area distribution for a given CG could vary based on intended performance. Suits intended for high performance often have CP (center of pressure) biased further to the rear. Suits intended for acrobatics, flocking, or student use often have the CP biased further forward. Do you have intended CG/CP relationships for each of your suit models?

I'm curious how much the human CG does vary for given height/weight ranges. What have you found so far with your table? I'd imagine that if this info is useful to somebody else, there is already some data out there in a human factors library somewhere listing 5/50/95 percentile distributions. (This is just an academic pursuit - if the variance is indeed significant, then you are on the right track measuring each person individually).

Could you post a picture of your table and how it works? What body position do you have people in on the table? As you know, CG is dependent on this. I will have to stop by the shop again next time I'm in town.
www.WingsuitPhotos.com

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