nathaniel 0 #1 February 8, 2007 Picking this up out of Medusa's thread so as not to confuse his butt buddy Tonto wrote: Quote Originally posted by Tonto: Of course, the lighter you are, the easier it is to fly, to the extent that bits of dirt (dust) are easy to see suspended in a sunbeam longer than you or I or any wingsuit pilot can fly, with no aerodynamics or skill what so ever. Aha, but dust does not rely on airfoils creating lift to say up. Dust floats due to its size and mass vs the viscosity and density of air, and the strength of air currents in the environments we live in. Quote Originally posted by Tonto: Q. How many biological flying creatures are there that weigh 160lbs? A. Zero Humans don't fly quite like a bird, we glide like a flying snake or a squirrel. Birds use their muscles to flap their wings, expending energy to generate power. They are limited by their mass because they're not particularly strong. We humans convert the chemical energy in the plane's fuel to potential energy in our bodies, and then let gravity do the work of creating lift. We're energy leeches, our ability to ride up in the plane is not affected by our mass unless we get too fat to skydive.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #2 February 9, 2007 So... how many 160lb flying snakes, or squirrils are there? A. Zero It's easier to get smaller things to fly than bigger things. You can argue that as much as you like, but I think we all know it to be true. There are millions and millions of flying creatures that weigh under 1lb, and none - not one - that weighs over 45. Argue all you like. It won't change that. As for birds not being "particularly strong" well, I guess it depends on how you define strength. They can't bench press much, but then no Olympic weight lifter has flown across the channel under their own power. They seem strong enough to fly unaided, and I'm not strong enough to do that, so I think they're stronger than I am. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites saly 0 #3 February 9, 2007 Quetzalcoatlus had a wingspan of 12 metres (40 feet) but weighed only 50 kilograms (110 pounds), and lived during the late Cretaceous period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterodactyl We had beter all go on diet or we may become extinct too --------------------------------------------- If you don't have wings you will never fly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bofh 0 #4 February 9, 2007 QuoteSo... how many 160lb flying snakes, or squirrils are there? A. Zero You are still, comparing apples and oranges. A 160lb flying snake might be really good at flying, but perhaps lousy at protecting itself against predators so it will be dead before it is able to make baby snakes... A naturally flying/gliding creature has to balance lots of factors, not just the optimal flight performance to be a success. It has to be safe against predators, parasites, etc. It has to have a form that allows it to gather food and consume it and thus gain energy faster than it uses it up and so on. There are a lot of factors. With cheap oil and slaves, we rich humans do not have many of those limitations... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bergh 0 #5 February 9, 2007 Hi My take is as follows 6'6 = 2.01m 160lb = 72.57kg 72.57kg/2.01m = 36.10 kg per meter now 5'0 = 1.5m so x /1.5m = 36.10kg per meter X = 54.15 kg = 119.27lb so to compare apples with apples Give two people the same suit with same experience. The one being 6'6 160lb and the other being 5'0 119.27lb. Now you have two people with same pounds per inch of length. Lets see who flies further and faster. I think 5.0 at 119 pounds will kick ass_______________________________________ You are unique, just like everybody else ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #6 February 9, 2007 I like comparing apples and oranges. Since each person who climbs into a wingsuit is different in height, weight, body structure, age, fitness, experience, desire, imagination etc - we will ALWAYS be comparing apples and oranges. I just think that from what I have seen, small and light whips tall and thin every time, with the possible exception of flat out forward speed. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pierre3636 0 #7 February 9, 2007 i like the Darwinist undertone ~ time is ~ time was ~ times past ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #8 February 9, 2007 It's Friday afternoon and the weekend is here. You'd settle for anything! tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bofh 0 #9 February 9, 2007 QuoteI just think that from what I have seen, small and light whips tall and thin every time, with the possible exception of flat out forward speed. t That might very well be true, but statements about the existence of animals with certain properties do not give any support for that argument, because the animals will have to do more than just archive a good glide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites KrisFlyZ 0 #10 February 9, 2007 Quote I just think that from what I have seen, small and light whips tall and thin every time, with the possible exception of flat out forward speed. t That may be true. If we are talking about wingloading. The shorter lighter(in our example 6'6", 160 vs 5'4" 100 lb) person has a lower wingloading. The lighter person wins in a floating race(until strength becomes an issue) no doubts there. When it comes to glide, I can only comment if both people are built the same...then the lighter person has an advantage(having been both people myself...90kg vs 73 kg). Kris. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #11 February 9, 2007 Quote Now you have two people with same pounds per inch of length. Lift varies with width in addition to length. Humans tend to have arms approx as wide as we are tall, esp if you wear one of tonysuits' latest bedsheets, so I think it makes sense to take the height squared.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #12 February 9, 2007 Since this thread was opened with my being quoted, and with animals involved - I'll state whatever I feel like, thanks. You may feel that the industrial revolution and 100 years of mechanised flight opts us out of the food chain, but I disagree. We cannot escape our evolution. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ghetto 0 #13 February 9, 2007 QuoteYou may feel that the industrial revolution and 100 years of mechanised flight opts us out of the food chain, but I disagree. We cannot escape our evolution. t That sounds like the same argument the wright brothers heard over and over before proving everybody wrong Web Design Cleveland Skydiving "Hey, these cookies don't taste anything like girl scouts..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 980 0 #14 February 10, 2007 Quotebut then no Olympic weight lifter has flown across the channel under their own power. you may find this interesting not unaided, but human powered flight, none the less as for the height and mass debate in wingsuit skydiving, maybe the tall and light people who feel they have the advantage should take the 'T-challenge' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #15 February 10, 2007 Sam, I thought you'd know me well enough to know that I would not have used the Channel example if I never knew of that flight. He was a cyclist - not a weight lifter. This forum is just like any other. People beleive what they beleive, and resent others who do the same thing. Everyone who is "Tall and light" seems to want to beleive that they are genetically predisposed to being a better wingsuit pilot. That's not what I've seen in my experience. Edgar is tall and thin. You're kinda there, in a chunky way. Jules is certainly there, as is Timoty. All you guys fly a lot, and your peers have respect for your ability and experience. Gavin and Rainer have maybe 100 wingsuit dives between them, and fly an S1 and Classic respectively. They are not current or very experienced. They are both around 1.6 something though, and around 60 kg, and the numbers they post on those suits are numbers anyone in a modern suit would envy. There must be a reason for that. It can't be their experience. It can't be their currency. It can't be their modern gear. It must be something else. What do you think it is? tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites KrisFlyZ 0 #16 February 10, 2007 Quote as for the height and mass debate in wingsuit skydiving, maybe the tall and light people who feel they have the advantage should take the 'T-challenge' I will at the first opportunity. Just so there is no confusion. If this challenge involves flying for time. I know I have already lost. I fancy my chances if it is glide. Kris. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 980 0 #17 February 10, 2007 I was pretty sure you knew of that flight, it was more for the benefit of those young punks out there who did not know. to be clear, I think we probably believe the same thing about this topic I have no want to believe that being tall and light predisposes one to being a better wingsuit pilot. If I am indeed in that category (not too chunky?? -thanks for that one buddy) then wouldn't it be cooler if I wasn't genetically advantaged in wingsuit flight, yet still manage to fly reasonably OK? As for the shorter people's reasons for success, I don't know, maybe it has to do with a better length to width ratio, or better weight distribution, or bigger surface to volume ratio? I think we need to run some lab tests on them... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites KrisFlyZ 0 #18 February 11, 2007 From what Tonto has posted I believe he is talking about time. That is pretty straightforward. m*g = K * V* V for most of the flight. Or velocity is proportional to the squareroot of weight. Can we say without doubt that the shorter lighter people always fly longer than the taller people of equal weight? I don't know about predisposition but I believe that being lean and tall is an advantage. Is it more of an advantage than being short and light? I don't know the answer to that. Anyway flying for glide to me is about getting the best that my physical shape and strength will allow. And changing that to what I think is advantageous as much as I can in the gym. Kris. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites piisfish 135 #19 February 11, 2007 Quote They are both around 1.6 something though, and around 60 kg, and the numbers they post on those suits are numbers anyone in a modern suit would envy. There must be a reason for that. It can't be their experience. It can't be their currency. It can't be their modern gear. It must be something else. What do you think it is?do they circle in the thermals ? scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VectorBoy 0 #20 February 11, 2007 the numbers they post on those suits are numbers anyone in a modern suit would envy. There must be a reason for that. It can't be their experience. It can't be their currency. It can't be their modern gear. It must be something else. What do you think it is? t I don't know the gentlemen in question but could it be that they are lieing through their teeth? Hey, they are not BMIs by any chance,.... are they? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #2 February 9, 2007 So... how many 160lb flying snakes, or squirrils are there? A. Zero It's easier to get smaller things to fly than bigger things. You can argue that as much as you like, but I think we all know it to be true. There are millions and millions of flying creatures that weigh under 1lb, and none - not one - that weighs over 45. Argue all you like. It won't change that. As for birds not being "particularly strong" well, I guess it depends on how you define strength. They can't bench press much, but then no Olympic weight lifter has flown across the channel under their own power. They seem strong enough to fly unaided, and I'm not strong enough to do that, so I think they're stronger than I am. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
saly 0 #3 February 9, 2007 Quetzalcoatlus had a wingspan of 12 metres (40 feet) but weighed only 50 kilograms (110 pounds), and lived during the late Cretaceous period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterodactyl We had beter all go on diet or we may become extinct too --------------------------------------------- If you don't have wings you will never fly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bofh 0 #4 February 9, 2007 QuoteSo... how many 160lb flying snakes, or squirrils are there? A. Zero You are still, comparing apples and oranges. A 160lb flying snake might be really good at flying, but perhaps lousy at protecting itself against predators so it will be dead before it is able to make baby snakes... A naturally flying/gliding creature has to balance lots of factors, not just the optimal flight performance to be a success. It has to be safe against predators, parasites, etc. It has to have a form that allows it to gather food and consume it and thus gain energy faster than it uses it up and so on. There are a lot of factors. With cheap oil and slaves, we rich humans do not have many of those limitations... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bergh 0 #5 February 9, 2007 Hi My take is as follows 6'6 = 2.01m 160lb = 72.57kg 72.57kg/2.01m = 36.10 kg per meter now 5'0 = 1.5m so x /1.5m = 36.10kg per meter X = 54.15 kg = 119.27lb so to compare apples with apples Give two people the same suit with same experience. The one being 6'6 160lb and the other being 5'0 119.27lb. Now you have two people with same pounds per inch of length. Lets see who flies further and faster. I think 5.0 at 119 pounds will kick ass_______________________________________ You are unique, just like everybody else ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #6 February 9, 2007 I like comparing apples and oranges. Since each person who climbs into a wingsuit is different in height, weight, body structure, age, fitness, experience, desire, imagination etc - we will ALWAYS be comparing apples and oranges. I just think that from what I have seen, small and light whips tall and thin every time, with the possible exception of flat out forward speed. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pierre3636 0 #7 February 9, 2007 i like the Darwinist undertone ~ time is ~ time was ~ times past ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #8 February 9, 2007 It's Friday afternoon and the weekend is here. You'd settle for anything! tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bofh 0 #9 February 9, 2007 QuoteI just think that from what I have seen, small and light whips tall and thin every time, with the possible exception of flat out forward speed. t That might very well be true, but statements about the existence of animals with certain properties do not give any support for that argument, because the animals will have to do more than just archive a good glide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrisFlyZ 0 #10 February 9, 2007 Quote I just think that from what I have seen, small and light whips tall and thin every time, with the possible exception of flat out forward speed. t That may be true. If we are talking about wingloading. The shorter lighter(in our example 6'6", 160 vs 5'4" 100 lb) person has a lower wingloading. The lighter person wins in a floating race(until strength becomes an issue) no doubts there. When it comes to glide, I can only comment if both people are built the same...then the lighter person has an advantage(having been both people myself...90kg vs 73 kg). Kris. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #11 February 9, 2007 Quote Now you have two people with same pounds per inch of length. Lift varies with width in addition to length. Humans tend to have arms approx as wide as we are tall, esp if you wear one of tonysuits' latest bedsheets, so I think it makes sense to take the height squared.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #12 February 9, 2007 Since this thread was opened with my being quoted, and with animals involved - I'll state whatever I feel like, thanks. You may feel that the industrial revolution and 100 years of mechanised flight opts us out of the food chain, but I disagree. We cannot escape our evolution. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ghetto 0 #13 February 9, 2007 QuoteYou may feel that the industrial revolution and 100 years of mechanised flight opts us out of the food chain, but I disagree. We cannot escape our evolution. t That sounds like the same argument the wright brothers heard over and over before proving everybody wrong Web Design Cleveland Skydiving "Hey, these cookies don't taste anything like girl scouts..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
980 0 #14 February 10, 2007 Quotebut then no Olympic weight lifter has flown across the channel under their own power. you may find this interesting not unaided, but human powered flight, none the less as for the height and mass debate in wingsuit skydiving, maybe the tall and light people who feel they have the advantage should take the 'T-challenge' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #15 February 10, 2007 Sam, I thought you'd know me well enough to know that I would not have used the Channel example if I never knew of that flight. He was a cyclist - not a weight lifter. This forum is just like any other. People beleive what they beleive, and resent others who do the same thing. Everyone who is "Tall and light" seems to want to beleive that they are genetically predisposed to being a better wingsuit pilot. That's not what I've seen in my experience. Edgar is tall and thin. You're kinda there, in a chunky way. Jules is certainly there, as is Timoty. All you guys fly a lot, and your peers have respect for your ability and experience. Gavin and Rainer have maybe 100 wingsuit dives between them, and fly an S1 and Classic respectively. They are not current or very experienced. They are both around 1.6 something though, and around 60 kg, and the numbers they post on those suits are numbers anyone in a modern suit would envy. There must be a reason for that. It can't be their experience. It can't be their currency. It can't be their modern gear. It must be something else. What do you think it is? tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrisFlyZ 0 #16 February 10, 2007 Quote as for the height and mass debate in wingsuit skydiving, maybe the tall and light people who feel they have the advantage should take the 'T-challenge' I will at the first opportunity. Just so there is no confusion. If this challenge involves flying for time. I know I have already lost. I fancy my chances if it is glide. Kris. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
980 0 #17 February 10, 2007 I was pretty sure you knew of that flight, it was more for the benefit of those young punks out there who did not know. to be clear, I think we probably believe the same thing about this topic I have no want to believe that being tall and light predisposes one to being a better wingsuit pilot. If I am indeed in that category (not too chunky?? -thanks for that one buddy) then wouldn't it be cooler if I wasn't genetically advantaged in wingsuit flight, yet still manage to fly reasonably OK? As for the shorter people's reasons for success, I don't know, maybe it has to do with a better length to width ratio, or better weight distribution, or bigger surface to volume ratio? I think we need to run some lab tests on them... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrisFlyZ 0 #18 February 11, 2007 From what Tonto has posted I believe he is talking about time. That is pretty straightforward. m*g = K * V* V for most of the flight. Or velocity is proportional to the squareroot of weight. Can we say without doubt that the shorter lighter people always fly longer than the taller people of equal weight? I don't know about predisposition but I believe that being lean and tall is an advantage. Is it more of an advantage than being short and light? I don't know the answer to that. Anyway flying for glide to me is about getting the best that my physical shape and strength will allow. And changing that to what I think is advantageous as much as I can in the gym. Kris. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #19 February 11, 2007 Quote They are both around 1.6 something though, and around 60 kg, and the numbers they post on those suits are numbers anyone in a modern suit would envy. There must be a reason for that. It can't be their experience. It can't be their currency. It can't be their modern gear. It must be something else. What do you think it is?do they circle in the thermals ? scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #20 February 11, 2007 the numbers they post on those suits are numbers anyone in a modern suit would envy. There must be a reason for that. It can't be their experience. It can't be their currency. It can't be their modern gear. It must be something else. What do you think it is? t I don't know the gentlemen in question but could it be that they are lieing through their teeth? Hey, they are not BMIs by any chance,.... are they? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,611 #21 February 11, 2007 QuoteSo... how many 160lb flying snakes, or squirrils are there? A. Zero It's easier to get smaller things to fly than bigger things. You can argue that as much as you like, but I think we all know it to be true. There are millions and millions of flying creatures that weigh under 1lb, and none - not one - that weighs over 45. Argue all you like. It won't change that. As for birds not being "particularly strong" well, I guess it depends on how you define strength. They can't bench press much, but then no Olympic weight lifter has flown across the channel under their own power. They seem strong enough to fly unaided, and I'm not strong enough to do that, so I think they're stronger than I am. t "The heaviest flying bird is the great bustard which weighs up to 46 pounds (20.9 kg). " The biological problems are many: wing area goes up as the square of linear dimensions, but mass as the cube. Bending moments increase with mass, but non linearly with wingspan. Muscle strength requirements also scale non linearly, and so muscle mass requirements also work against large size. Swans are the commonest "heavy" bird (male Mute Swans can reach 30 pounds). Anyone ever watch swans taking off and landing?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohanW 0 #22 February 18, 2007 No, I haven't seen swans take off and land. In person. However .. Take off .. Touch down .. I say, nice editing. Jarno, paying attention? Oh, and on that tangent TOP SWAN We now faithfully return you to your regularly scheduled programme .. couldn't resist and please don't kill my home webserver Johan. I am. I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites