0
yuri_base

More is more?

Recommended Posts

Quote

you guys are going to have a decision to make in the future with respect to rigid, and semi-rigid features. There will almost assuredly be stiffeners and shapers which will enhance performance that don't bend or fold much.



There's already quite a bit of thinking and tinkering happening in that direction..namely by a few people 'outside the commercial market'

Who knows what 2008 is going to bringB|
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Well, all you are saying is that fabric can be added inefficiently. But you can't deny a canopy gets better glide ratios than you do. You guys haven't reached 7 to 1 or anything have you?



Actually, I think I remember one man in an early M1 did 7:1 once.. :P;) Matt, do you remember the details of that, can you refresh our memory? ;)
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Actually, I think I remember one man in an early M1 did 7:1 once.. :P;) Matt, do you remember the details of that, can you refresh our memory? ;)



That's the same guy that beat you in the distance contest isn't it, Tony? :P


edited to add: Tony was robbed... ;)
www.WestCoastWingsuits.com
www.PrecisionSkydiving.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if smoother and smaller surface area was always better, golf balls wouldn't have dimples and shark skin wouldn't be as rough as sandpaper...



I know what you are saying. Sharks and super sonic fighters have a ruff skin texture but they operate at different fluid density or fluid velocity.

Like Matt said wingsuit science is a large unknown. When it comes to vertical skydiving its well known that the added texture slows the speed and the smoother material gives the lightweights the needed speed. When it comes to us in WS, who knows?

How much do we rely on the suits airfoils or are we at best lifting bodies like the flying bathtub experiments. How much does a little texture or turbulation help or hurt us. Don't know.

BTW aren't the dimples in golf balls for stability, so that they don't do those things that baseballs do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, ok, let's stay on topic, boys! The topic is not "Bigger is better!" or "Size does matter!" ;)

If it were, I'd have posted a picture of the biggest airplane or biggest nipple in the world (we all know who's the happy owner of it, his name has 5 letters: J, a, r, n, o).

Maxim's airplane with 20 wings is an apotheosis of thoughtless "more is more" approach to development. "The Wright Brothers built a plane with 2 wings... well, I'll build a plane with 20 wings!!! Woooohoooo!!! I wins, u sucks!"

The point is, we reached the end of the road. We maxed out the size of fabric, but we haven't applied any of the basic aerodynamics ideas to it. Wingsuiting made as much progress in the last 80 years as from Wright Brothers to Maxim.

Rebellious minds of all countries, unite in the righteous struggle for the beautiful wingsuits of the future, against flying mattresses!!! If not YOU, who will make the future?!

;)
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
Quote


Rebellious minds of all countries, unite in the righteous struggle for the beautiful wingsuits of the future, against flying mattresses!!! If not YOU, who will make the future?!



SuperYuri will save the day and liberate us from horrible wingsuits with his own design... the Clown1 (shoes not included) ;)
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This actually gave me a thought:

Would it make sense that if the top/back surface of the wingsuit was as slick as posible, but the bottom surface had more of a directed pattern--like sharkskin--wouldn't the resulting difference in airspeed (between the air going over the back skin and the bellyskin) give us better lift? shit, if you did the top/back with the front 1/3 zp and rest f111 you'd even get the whole "suck the air over the top" thing going on...

am I just rambling, or does this make sense to anybody else?
BASE #958

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Would it make sense that if the top/back surface of the wingsuit was as slick as posible, but the bottom surface had more of a directed pattern



Wouldnt this also be counter-productive? Unless you mean it the other way around. What you are saying here would decrease the lift..not increase...

You need air passing slower over the top of the wing then it does underneath, creating a low pressure 'sucking' the wing up.
Increasing drag on the bottom and having a smoother surface on top to speed the air up seems to do the excact opposite...
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I've never seen shark's skin. Is it like sand paper or more like gaffers tape? ;)




Yuri, its not NEARLY as cool as gaffers tape (but sadly, not much is). Shark skin is kindof like that new (1999 new) 3m mouse pads that are a huge grid of microscopic pyramids, except the sharkskin's microscopic texture tips are pointed all one way to give directional bias. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.astrographics.com/GalleryPrints/Display/GP2127.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.astrographics.com/GalleryPrintsIndex/GP2127.html&h=360&w=360&sz=17&tbnid=vM_BDWLNmYeHiM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=121&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dshark%2Bskin%26um%3D1&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1
BASE #958

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Would it make sense that if the top/back surface of the wingsuit was as slick as posible, but the bottom surface had more of a directed pattern



Wouldnt this also be counter-productive? Unless you mean it the other way around. What you are saying here would decrease the lift..not increase...

You need air passing slower over the top of the wing then it does underneath, creating a low pressure 'sucking' the wing up.
Increasing drag on the bottom and having a smoother surface on top to speed the air up seems to do the excact opposite...



See, you knew what this stoner meant ;). I was just thinking that currently all the suits are made to be slick all the way around for increased speed, and thus control and lift. I wonder if we could get performance increases by inducing drag where it may help us, instead of keeping away from it like the plague
BASE #958

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Would it make sense that if the top/back surface of the wingsuit was as slick as posible, but the bottom surface had more of a directed pattern



Wouldnt this also be counter-productive? Unless you mean it the other way around. What you are saying here would decrease the lift..not increase...

You need air passing slower over the top of the wing then it does underneath, creating a low pressure 'sucking' the wing up.



Ummmm - NO!
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This actually gave me a thought:

Would it make sense that if the top/back surface of the wingsuit was as slick as posible, but the bottom surface had more of a directed pattern--like sharkskin--wouldn't the resulting difference in airspeed (between the air going over the back skin and the bellyskin) give us better lift? shit, if you did the top/back with the front 1/3 zp and rest f111 you'd even get the whole "suck the air over the top" thing going on...

am I just rambling, or does this make sense to anybody else?



Rambling.

Take a look at a high performance glider and see if it has deliberate drag inducing patterns on the underside of its wings.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You need air passing slower over the top of the wing then it does underneath, creating a low pressure 'sucking' the wing up.
Increasing drag on the bottom and having a smoother surface on top to speed the air up seems to do the excact opposite...



It's irrelevant anyway, but you have it backwards here Jarno. High speed air has a lower static pressure.
www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This actually gave me a thought:

Would it make sense that if the top/back surface of the wingsuit was as slick as posible, but the bottom surface had more of a directed pattern--like sharkskin--wouldn't the resulting difference in airspeed (between the air going over the back skin and the bellyskin) give us better lift?



It is a theory but if we more like lifting bodies ( a theory of its own) then the backside could be fabricated out of shag carpet without ill effect as it would be in a huge burble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rough stuff isn't to slow air down. its to keep the boundary layer turbulent, which keeps it attached to the wing longer, which gives you more lift. thats why the balls have dimples. so you'd want rough stuff on the top of the wing.

i don't think we're there yet on wing suits, i dunno but im guessing our boundary layers are pretty damn turbulent as things are.
word to your mother,
RJ$$
BASE 1117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

rough stuff isn't to slow air down. its to keep the boundary layer turbulent, which keeps it attached to the wing longer, which gives you more lift. thats why the balls have dimples. so you'd want rough stuff on the top of the wing.

i don't think we're there yet on wing suits, i dunno but im guessing our boundary layers are pretty damn turbulent as things are.



Bird-Man had the deflectors on the S3, S3S and the S6, exactly for this reason, to keep the turbulent flow longer on the wing. I guess on the Blade it was no longer deemed as useful and taken off.

Unfortunately the flow over the top of the wing seems to separate almost immediately, as you can see in this revealing video making the whole idea of an airfoil shape on your wingsuit laughable. However much we would like to believe otherwise, what we "fly" are nothing more really than air deflectors, which is why Tony's 1 layer suit can actually "fly" pretty well with 2 layer wingsuits.
Costyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
true i totally forgot about those thingies in regards to this discussion/advanced aero stuff.

well im ready to try vacuum boundary layer suction on my wingsuit, the tiny fans are gonna suck from the top of my wing then also inflate into the wing itself. all powered by 50 9 volt batteries placed around the wingsuit, orrr 1 big battery, feeding the vacuums through christmas tree lights, which will in turn make me look super sick and lit up as my boundary layers are far more attached than the rest of yous's
word to your mother,
RJ$$
BASE 1117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You need air passing slower over the top of the wing then it does underneath, creating a low pressure 'sucking' the wing up.
Increasing drag on the bottom and having a smoother surface on top to speed the air up seems to do the excact opposite...

[:/]

Good one !! yeah low speed sucks :ph34r:
Patrick de Guillebon


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Unfortunately the flow over the top of the wing seems to separate almost immediately, as you can see in this revealing video making the whole idea of an airfoil shape on your wingsuit laughable. However much we would like to believe otherwise, what we "fly" are nothing more really than air deflectors, which is why Tony's 1 layer suit can actually "fly" pretty well with 2 layer wingsuits.



Maybe it apply for you...
Maybe you fly just because you miss the earth every time...

That statement is so fulish that this is laughable too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Maybe it apply for you...
Maybe you fly just because you miss the earth every time...

That statement is so fulish that this is laughable too...



Your spelling is 'fulish':P But forgiven since you're German..and Germans rock the house in their lederhosen!

The footage we've seen so far, visualising the airflow over the wing suggests the airflow seperates before even hitting further then 1/3d up the wing. There's also some single-layer wingsuits out there get more then decent glideratios and flight times..

As 'filled with poopoo' you may find that statement..just looking at the videolink he posted along with it should at least be some food for thought..

It may be laughable to you, but English speech with a German accent is waaayy funnier...;)
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

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.

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