0
gottabefunky

Article on landing wingsuit w/o parachute

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Considering what we now know about the wingsuit/skis combo I would have to go with fantasyland

Perhaps true! Do tell about the learned experiences here - I'd like to see some scientific data. Or is it just a few datapoints from a few different people (who probably each tried just one-ski-model?)



Well I just look at the fact that all the forward speed of the wingsuit sends your parachute back on deployment instead of upward (look at the "Does this look scary" thread) so I would hate to have to deploy with skis on... looks like a stupid risk to me

I know, I know! You don't need the parachute cause you plan on landing the skis but are YOU going to be the one to try this without a parachute in order to gather data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know, I know! You don't need the parachute cause you plan on landing the skis but are YOU going to be the one to try this without a parachute in order to gather data?

For pratice flights and pull above 3000-5000 feet, it's a solvable technicalty.

EXAMPLE
- Higher than normal pulls (5000ft) with ultra-slow opening parachutes (2000 feet snivel). Example: Custom-made slower spectre with massive sliders, etc.
- Ski cutaway mechanisms (also useful if slow opening snivels too long and you got to pull reserve)
- AND/OR Ski stowage methods, tested incrementally. (any number of methods of safing the skiis to prevent injury or whiplash during deployment, using a future method that doesn't increase deployment risk too much)
- Obviously, a faster opening canopy would be used for low-altitude practice after experience is gained, and also during actual attempts, once enough experience is gained about wearing skiis during deployment.
- etc.

The danger is obviously with the skiis itself during deployment -- such as their weight, whiplash effects, snag hazards, pilot chute entangulation, and the safety risks of whatever additional mechanisms are added. Skijumping binders are lighter weight than many shoes people are already jumping with -- so the ski jumping equipment, weigh less than downhill skiis. However, ski jumping skiis are much longer, which is another issue. Still, those are studyable and probably mitigatable, given sufficient money thrown at this problem.

There can also be snag/entangulation/instability/side-effects/etc of various stowage or stabilization methods such as lanyards (such as attaching ski tips to forearms, to stabilize skiis, one of dozens of methods that might or might not be pratical, etc). However, the bottom line is that, these appear to be all solvable stuff by a hired paid rigger/testjumper/etc working with a proper team. Throw just a mere $100K at the problems with the industry, manufacturers, and the best test jumpers/riggers of the industry, and you might even get further along than other possible methods of landing a wingsuit. Even though people like me and you might not actually do such a jump, there are many people out there willing to help somebody else to do such a jump, and try to solve all the problems -- even related to the logistics of safely doing test flights, etc.

Or other solutions. Of course, pretty dangerous stuff (especially today), but nontheless solvable technicalities by an extreme red-bull-league jumper in the future.

It's not a showstopper, by all means, with additional layer of planning. Overkill? Maybe. But it would still appear to possibly be potentially still safer than other methods of landing a wingsuit, like slides, low altitude pulls, etc.

Yes, all the stuff I wrote is stupidly risky. But for the whole chain of events of landing a wingsuit, I think it's the safest. You can linger above the slope longer. You don't need low-altitude waterslides. You don't have as many "one-chance" scenarios. Let's not forget there's more escape options for a skislope landing.

PLUS even a failed landing moment still has at least *some* chance of survival, full stop. (high speed wipeouts are much more survivable than a freefall impact -- just look at the 300mph motorcycle wipeout with the human bumping along free of motorcycle at 300mph, and the 100-to-150mph ski racing wipeouts that have been survived. And people have actually hit 120-150mph in water ski racing. A wipeout at that speed involve a humans skipping on water (concrete) at incredible sppeds during a wipeout, although most water racing wipeouts go less than 50mph. For the daredevil type attempts with proper gear, the number of survival stories actually outnumber the number of death stories, for high speed horizontal wipeouts, apparently even at the same speeds of wingsuit flight over a slope. Nasty, but apparently, on average, usually less hospital carnage than a mere 30mph vertical impact...

The science of high speed horizontal wipeouts in many sports, is already a well known science, and a big appealing factor of doing more research/study. Now, the science of making wingsuit test jumps with safe deployments with skiis is relatively simple science in comparision to the other options such as water bubble zones or Las Vegas structures (if someone HAD the unfailing desire to land a wingsuit and survive), especially if you got $100K to throw at a team of testjumpers/riggers to make it "safe enough" for your "red bull" league team. Even a shoestring $15K might be enough to make the sufficient customizations (such as custom ultraslow opening canopy and temporary custom-made ski jumping skiis for high altitude aerodynamic tests) necessary to do 10+ high-altitude test jumps by a skijumper-experienced wingsuiter to prove feasibilities, before approving of $100K of investments as a precursor, sensor equipment, trail training period, logistics, etc, to getting funding to practice and do the actual attempt.

Yes, perhaps still fantasyland. Yes, perhaps some other showstopper will come up. But I don't think ski deployments is the showstopper, as I explained above.

Full circle back to what I said: "More research is needed"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think adding skis to a wingsuit is "the safest way" and that has been proven. Your adding too many components to the equation therefore kicking the risk factor way up... entanglements happen, ski cutaway systems fail and even if you do make it to touch down bindings break (broken my fair share) and as you pointed out even pro skiers bail

I still say the only way we will ever see someone land a wingsuit by McCordia's standards is through a slower flight.

But hey if a certain colored bovine company wants to give it a go, I will certainly download the youtube video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in reply to "Yes, perhaps still fantasyland. Yes, perhaps some other showstopper will come up. But I don't think ski deployments is the showstopper, as I explained above.

Full circle back to what I said: "More research is needed" "

.................................

Your posts have made good reading mdrejhon. Cheers.

I've designed some semi-automatic ski's for a non-fabric wingsuit lander.
I've called them Trailing Edge Skids or Traeskids for short.

The idea is that during normal flight they remain retracted using spring and airpressure , dropping down automatically on touchdown . They can also be extended manually using foot /leg movements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem with skiies that is springloaded to handle a constant pressure, like you have when you skijump, because of ground to air factor along the ground, you will meet different pressure during a longer flight away from the ground profile. It will make them quite unstable and dangerous. Skijumpers takes off and land all the time, so will it be considered a skijump landing or a wingsuit landing? In my eyes skijumpers can jump 1 000 meter, no problem if they only find the right profile. If you want to consider it as a wingsuit landing it have already been done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't think adding skis to a wingsuit is "the safest way" and that has been proven. Your adding too many components to the equation therefore kicking the risk factor way up...

That may very well be the showstopper but I still think more proving is needed as time and new technologies passes -- the question is whether familiarity with skijumping/racing and wingsuit, outweighs the safety risks of additional components (after some safing with a team of qualified riggers/specialists) -- or other techniques of landing a wingsuit which would appear to be riskier.

After all, we've made skydiving safer to the point where even 200-jump-wonders are strapping on miniature film studios to their helmets and also doing skydives that skydiving gear of 30 years ago wasn't designed for, and then subsequently landing a parachute at highway speeds undreamed of, not too long ago. Who's to say that in the future -- say 50 years -- we haven't made gear safer to the point, where adding more components necessary for wingsuit landing, becomes pratical and acceptable from a risk-analysis perspective? Not advocating so, but isn't that the reality?

Quote

I still say the only way we will ever see someone land a wingsuit by McCordia's standards is through a slower flight.

That may be, I was delibrately conservative in my timelines (10 year to 50 year in future). But I think it would still involve a ski slope of some kind -- even if it doesn't involve skiis or in the type I am thinking of. I still think level ground will be too risky (it's a 'once chance or you die' scenario). With a slope, you've got several chances to escape, and a high-speed wipeout is proven survivable with the right prep. Even the Las Vegas slide idea is a form of a slope -- although I think that's too low altitude. Example: Why not groom a summertime unused ski slope (probably available for rent for cheap) instead into a 2 mile long and very wide waterslide? Then you get the benefits of both the skislope idea and the Las Vegas idea mentioned a few years ago. And probably cheaper than a few million dollars, because you don't need structural supports)

So it's possible that even if the ski idea is eventually invalidated, I will be happy to eat my words -- but I might even still be right indirectly: that a ski slope will still be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slope or no slope the speeds we get are too fast, the goal is not to survive a wingsuit landing but to walk away from one... otherwise whats the point? You have to be pretty stupid to do it for the show even if it means you may never walk again. That just too much versus the reward

So yeah we need to do research... was that already mentioned here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very interesting stuff! I took the time to quickly scan your posts. Even though it's just a demonstration prototype at this stage to illustrate a specific mechanism (and many have already commented), and I realize it is not final materials or strength or shape or length, I have a few comments relating specifically to skiis:
-> In a theoretical test of such equipment in the future (if anybody adopted the mechanism), I assume wind tests and high speed trial runs over snow, would be warranted, to figure out behaviour and related side effects.
-> The skis need to be designed for the surface it is on. If it's on snow, then consider the length of the 'skiis' on the final model be if one was ever made (far apart are front tip and the rearmost part?) You need a LOT length for stability at high speeds. Short skiis will tend to wipeout quickly at high speed, at least on snow, since the increased length adds stability, they lock into the grove better, resisting fishtailing/swerving/etc better. If your sled is designed to land on snow, make sure to take into factor of this particular design consideration. Length has its own risks too (it's harder to turn with longer skiis, they can injure in ways short skiis don't, etc) but short skiis at insane speeds on snow isn't stable -- unless it's on a different surface that benefits from shorter skiis rather than longer skiis, such as water.
-> Also, the material of the ski is important -- wrong material and it'll have too much friction, you'll need the right material for the right amount of friction for the proper glide on the type of material you're planning to land on. Too much friction versus too slippery has stability implications.
You probably already knew all of that, and the proper specialists will know way more, but I wanted to add those various comments out in the open...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You have to be pretty stupid to do it for the show even if it means you may never walk again. That just too much versus the reward

Just to point out -- I've never said I disagreed with it being stupid. But there are already several people who want to try (even though it may not happen in some of their lifetimes), once a solution is devised and/or enough funding happens. The question is what is really the safest way to do it. I think there has been other, way more dangerous things done, than a hypothetical wing suit landing. Example: At some point, some daredevil (er, 'andrenaline enthusaist') is going to think it is safe enough, with a better than 75% chance of walking away from it, 20% chance of major injury, and 5% of death -- "safe enough" to some daredevil type people. Again, not advocating it, but I really do envision that the metrics will probably eventually be met within my lifetime (say, the next 50 years). I'm not going to do it at those metrics, though, but I know some who would do it, at such risk metrics. It may never happen, but of all options of landing a wingsuit I think the metrics are the cheapest/safest with a ski slope (whether it has ultragroomed snow or 2 mile waterslide, etc), even with combination of other technologies such as slower wingsuits, other improvements that reduce risk, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in reply to "You probably already knew all of that, and the proper specialists will know way more, but I wanted to add those various comments out in the open... "

B|

Yes, very much a work in progress. Material and surfacing specialists could definitely take the component design and development way further.

I'm very interested in the use of laminates and composites for the structural load carrying and light weight advantages.

The skid design has a fairly low priority for me at the moment as the flight aspects of the suit(s) design are being more demanding.

One idea for a skid variation is to have a skid-plate rather than separate ski's.
The advantage of the skid-plate is that it would stay pointing in the right direction even if there was some sideways in the landing and would also not suffer from the possibility of ploughing or ski-separation.

I look forward to sharing some other component design issues as they arise .
Your (and others) intelligent comments are appreciated as this dream slowly becomes reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread has some of the craziest and stupidest ideas ever...

Where do I sign up ?!!

Here's my idea for landing w/o parachute:
As someone else stated, the only two solutions are increasing the wing or decreasing the payload. First, go on an aggresive diet to decrease body weight. Then have both arms and legs amputated and replaced with lightweight composite prosthetics. You could lose another ten pounds with additional surgeries, removing all unnecessary organs...10 or 12 feet of small intestine, appendix, spleen, pancreas, 1 kidney, 1 lung, 1 testicle, etc.

Viola! The wingsuit pilot's weight has just been cut in half...literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the technolgy were there to fill a very thin but very strong light weight capsule with helium or hydrogen. The capsule would be shaped like a flat plate in the shape of the rear and side wings, and would be between 1/8-1/2" thick(hollow). I am wondering if this would make your body essentially "lighter" so that lift is increase and thus both vertical and horizontal speed are reduced (aka essentially a lighter wing loading with no extreme diet or 20 ft wings). How many lbs of compressed helium/hydrogen would this flat capsule have to hold to signifigantly decrease a humans weight? Probably a lot, and it would also be a pain or impossible to collapse your wings so it might not be so much of a suit anymore. There would be a fill nipple and a quick release nozel too so you would have greater control. Heres the other thing you would need a source for this supercompressed gas on the plane or drop zone because as soon as you fill the capsules they would start to lift!

The first task is to esentially get a human to "hover" or body weight to be decreased to the point of where if a 200lb man got on a scale it would read 100, 50, 25, etc...then take that amount of compressed gas per square/in and put it into the wingsuit.

Then there is cost. Im guessing the technology is out there somewhere right now(NASA maybe). The idea will have to be pitched to them as a betterment for mankind. Kinda like the whole Felix Baumgartner project is a way to test the capability of humans surviving supersonic flight so maybe humans can fall from high altitudes if they had to exit from the edge of sky/space.

Yes maybe its a silly idea in 2010 but 50yrs from now when you see similar tecnology used in aerospace industry or on a sci fi movie remember it was my idea.;) And rest assured 1000 yrs from now every kid on the block will have one as a toy. Remember, we have only been jumping with parachutes(and living) about 200-225 yrs. Who knows what the future holds, we have so much more to learn.:o:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skwrl casts "Summon Kallend".

You may need to check your math a little - helium/hydrogen and other lighter than air gases don't generate anywhere near the amount of lift per cubic meter that you're talking about. Check out this article: http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/lift.html

Short version for those with ADD: using helium, you need a balloon 14 feet in diameter at sea level to lift a roughly 92lb weight.

That's one big ass wing.
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

50yrs from now when you see similar tecnology used in aerospace industry



Which is very funny, as NASA is moving away from lifting bodies more and more, and resorting to HUUUUUGE parachutes to land...
Its shows their direction of thinking about this problem...:P
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Skwrl casts "Summon Kallend".

You may need to check your math a little - helium/hydrogen and other lighter than air gases don't generate anywhere near the amount of lift per cubic meter that you're talking about. Check out this article: http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/lift.html

Short version for those with ADD: using helium, you need a balloon 14 feet in diameter at sea level to lift a roughly 92lb weight.

That's one big ass wing.



Good point and you very well may be correct. But thats why i figure the gas would have to be compressed....highly.

Like to the level of where its at a dangerously high psi...hence the technology of having a thin yet resiliant material to contain it.

There was an edition of "Parachutist" magazine a month or two ago where a wingsuiter was lifted to jump altitude by a bunch of helium filled ballons. What if you took that amount of helium and compressed it into a small enough space(like a thin wing). Heck you might not even need a plane to get to altitude. When your ready to come down just vent off some helium.

Im not a science major but i do know that gases are compressible and liquids are not. Im wondering if you compress helium or hydrogen enough if it becomes a liquid...and if so is it still lighter than air for the amount of space its liquid form takes up? I really dont know.:S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Good point and you very well may be correct. But thats why i figure the gas would have to be compressed....highly.




And therein lies your flaw. The reason lighter than air gases are lighter than air is because they are less dense - there is less stuff per cubic meter.

You cannot take something that is light, squash it, and expect it to have more 'lightness' (buoyancy) per cubic meter than it did before*. It doesn't work that way. It works the other way.

Look here.





* Kallend: please don't shoot me for writing that sentence:D
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lightest "thing" you could put inside a wing would be... well... nothing. A suit full of purified nothing. Sometimes its called vacuum, but generally still referred to as nothing. And it weights... nothing! :P

As far as compressing gases and their densities you really should read some physics 101.

Quote

There was an edition of "Parachutist" magazine a month or two ago where a wingsuiter was lifted to jump altitude by a bunch of helium filled ballons. What if you took that amount of helium and compressed it into a small enough space(like a thin wing). Heck you might not even need a plane to get to altitude. When your ready to come down just vent off some helium.


From wikipedia:
"This form of the ideal gas law is very useful because it links pressure, density ρ = m/V, and temperature in a unique formula independent from the quantity of the considered gas."
I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know those stretchy trrip wires they use on aircraft carriers to catch-hold the palnes as they land. How about usiug that idea, but in the air?

The wing suit flyer can toss a catch hook at 2,000 feet, which trails behind them. The catch hook hangs maybe 50 feet from the wing suiter.

Landing is into a valley (like those bridge valleys where they do base jumps. That valley is bridged with a bold coloured stretched bungy cord rope across it. Or two towers, or two tall buildings.

The wing suiter needs to fly over the bungy cord so the hanging catch hook catched the bungy rope. Then the G forces kick in!

If the wing suiter missses the bungy rope, they fire their reserve, or base rig canopy. If they catch it with the catch hook, it will slow them down like a bungy jump, first from forward speed, then I presume pulling them back then to leave them hanging. The bungy cord can be set to the right elasticity. At the end the assistants lower the bungy rope so the wing suiter is on the ground.

I have no idea where such as suitable place would be, but I could imagine some bungy people working with base jumpers, so a first step would be flying canopy ober the bungy to hook up. Slowly increase the Wing Loading, to test elastisisty and G force effect. Then a jump is make for someone to try in a wingsuit.

That's my idea for waht it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in reply to "This thread has some of the craziest and stupidest ideas ever...

Where do I sign up ?!! "

.................
Sounds like ur already committed :D

Even though this IS wonderfully crazy stuff there is some logical sense to it all.

Some comparisons with other crazy landing scenarios could be helpful here :
In WW2 gliders were used to land soldiers and equipment into battle fields. No second chances for those heroes. The gliders usually had skids to land on . The pilots were often very inexperienced and undertrained by modern standards. Of course being war time there were lots of bad accidents.

eg: the British Airspeed AS.51 and AS.58 Horsa.
This aircraft had approximately 1100sq ft of wingarea and carried a maximum load of approx 15500lb making a wingloading of about 14 lb/sq.ft
(all specs here from Encycopledia of World aircraft (SB edition) all maths approximate)

Another WW2 aircraft that was expected to and often did land on skids was the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet (rocket fighter). There were many reasons why this aircraft was very dangerous to land .
Wing area :211sq.ft
landing weight : (est.) 5000 lb
loading ;approx 23 lb/sq.ft

If a wingsuiter had an exit weight of 220lb(100kg) and a wingarea of 20sq /ft then the wingloading would be approx ll lb/sq.ft.

exit weigh of 180 lb (80kg) and w.a. 20 sq.ft then wingloading = 9 lb/sq.ft

If the wing area could be increased to 25 sq.ft with 180 lb exit weight then the loading drops close to 7 lb/sq.ft.
This loading is getting into the region of light aircraft with some aircraft around this loading being capable of extremely slow flight and landing speeds as well as being able to make reasonably straightforward unpowered landings .

So ...if wingsuits could achieve a wingarea of between 20 - 25 sq.ft and a landing weight of between 180- 220 lbs then wingloadings between 7 - 11 lbs/sq.ft are achievable.
Reasonable loadings for a serious attempt at landing a wingsuit.?


Modern wingsuits are more like 10 sq.ft (obviously different for different sized people).
A 200 lb (90kg) exit weight with even 12 sg.ft = nearly 17 lbs/sq.ft ,which is more than a fully loaded troop carrying WW2 glider but also less than the Messerschmitt Komet .
Unfortunately a fabric wingsuits wings are nowhere near as efficient as those old aircrafts wings.

So ... wingsuits would need to approximately double their wingarea AND improve their efficiencies to be a reasonable chance at repeatable /survivable no parachute landings.
I suppose it is possible that a fabric wingsuit could be developed with a last moment flaring ability enabling it to stall perfectly just above the ground.

It seems way more likely to me that wingsuit designers will slowly begin to skin their products with better materials that improve the wings performance and allow the wings to spread out past the reach of the arms and body.

Getting such semi-solid wings , or bits of wings , to fold and extend and stay fully controllable in flight is a very possible future of wingsuit design.
Such a wingsuit may be less comfortable on the ground and in the plane but would make up for it by being more comfortable in the air.

There are many advantages to a non-fabric surfaced wing . Too many to ignore.
It also opens a wonder world of exotic and varied design possibilities.

Supporting the extra lifting forces of a more efficient wing could be done by some form of non-fabric structure ( eg a spar ) .

There are many possible flexible spar designs.

Its another little prediction of mine that various forms of spars will begin to appear in wingsuits as the obvious advantages become apparent to wingsuit designers.
Not crazy just a sensible and natural progression.
Why use your arms/shoulders to take lifting forces if the wingsuit can do it for you ?
A spar would free up the arms, not exhaust them ,allowing full arm/shoulder strength for control input and emergency .
Integrating a spar into a wingsuit would be fairly straightforward, no rocket science involved.

Once this is done successfully there will be significance performance gains over non-sparred wingsuit designs .

"I want the one with the spar in it thanks"


Landing forces would preferably be taken by something other than body parts (hence the use of skids or even light-weight retractable u/c or wheels) . Some lite weight shock absorbers in the landing mechanism could be helpful.

Crazy enough for you yet?

The non-fabric wingsuit design challenge here is to incorporate the components required into a lite-weight unit that feels natural to fly .....and land.

The fabric wingsuit challenge is to try and keep up.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Supporting the extra lifting forces of a more efficient wing could be done by some form of non-fabric structure ( eg a spar ) .

There are many possible flexible spar designs.
:P



Can you help me better understand what this "spar" is that you are referring to?

Ive always been suprised the wings havent progressed to something more rigid/semi rigid. Would a suit benefit from a slick yet flexible sheet of thin plastic sewn on the wing surfaces and in long strips along the body to allow body movement but make air to glide more effeciently over the surface? Im guessing this would reduce drag which might not slow your speed but might make for more agile maneuvers.

Not enough? How about collapsable carbon kevlar(or similar) wings. They would probably need to be made from long thin 1-2" slats that were collapsable like an accordian(picture one of those chinese fans that fold up).

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