jakee 1,254 #76 May 24, 2011 QuoteEdit: Why were you even wearing a wingsuit at those speeds? After all, you've mentioned in other threads that you can track at those speeds ... But not with neccessary range and maneuverability, obviously. And regardless of the suitability of the big suits for flocking, an 80mph base is a problem! I mean come on, what's the point?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #77 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteEdit: Why were you even wearing a wingsuit at those speeds? After all, you've mentioned in other threads that you can track at those speeds ... But not with neccessary range and maneuverability, obviously. And regardless of the suitability of the big suits for flocking, an 80mph base is a problem! I mean come on, what's the point? I agree that those speeds are a problem. I disagree that the solution is to wear a large suit and add weight ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #78 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteEdit: Why were you even wearing a wingsuit at those speeds? After all, you've mentioned in other threads that you can track at those speeds ... But not with neccessary range and maneuverability, obviously. And regardless of the suitability of the big suits for flocking, an 80mph base is a problem! I mean come on, what's the point? I agree that those speeds are a problem. I disagree that the solution is to wear a large suit and add weight ... After my wife died last year I lost 20 pounds (that's 9kg for Jarno) for reasons associated with the stress of the situation. Your position is that using a suit I already have with a weight belt that I already have for RW is inappropriate, and spending $1,200 for a different suit so I can jump with the big boys is the way to go. Do you get a commission on WS sales? I can only suggest that you will have a more mature attitude after you've experienced something like the death of a spouse.... 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
Butters 0 #79 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteEdit: Why were you even wearing a wingsuit at those speeds? After all, you've mentioned in other threads that you can track at those speeds ... But not with neccessary range and maneuverability, obviously. And regardless of the suitability of the big suits for flocking, an 80mph base is a problem! I mean come on, what's the point? I agree that those speeds are a problem. I disagree that the solution is to wear a large suit and add weight ... Your position is that using a suit I already have with a weight belt that I already have for RW is inappropriate, and spending $1,200 for a different suit so I can jump with the big boys is the way to go. Do you get a commission on WS sales? No, I don't. You're proving my point, you can't (or won't) admit that you were wrong. An individual in a larger suit with a weight belt causes more disturbance than the same individual in a smaller suit without a weight belt."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mccordia 73 #80 May 24, 2011 Quotefor reasons associated with the stress of the situation Im truly moved and feel sorry for your loss, but dont see why you suddenly skip the whole arguement, and start naming other reasons for flying a certain sized suit. The discussion was not a personal ne regarding reasons to fly X or Y suit. It was one of actual applied physics not matching with the theories you mentioned. Its kind of low to play the guilt card, and try and make butters look like an ass for not agreeing....JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #81 May 24, 2011 Quote Quote for reasons associated with the stress of the situation Im truly moved and feel sorry for your loss, but dont see why you suddenly skip the whole arguement, and start naming other reasons for flying a certain sized suit. . Because it's the suit I bought when I was 9 kg heavier. You and Butters have this asinine thinking that I should jump a smaller suit because I've lost weight. My solution to an 80mph fall rate is to wear my RW weight belt. It works, and I STILL produce less turbulence than the average American male (see your equally asinine posts #22 and 23 of this thread). I'm sorry but you won't be collecting a sales commission from me.... 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
kallend 1,623 #82 May 24, 2011 Quote The discussion was not a personal ne regarding reasons to fly X or Y suit. It was one of actual applied physics not matching with the theories you mentioned. . What part of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy is it that you don't understand?... 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
mccordia 73 #83 May 24, 2011 Neither of us demand you jump another suit. You post a message on an event, and part of that post is a complaint about having difficulty with the speeds. You can try and weasel yourself out of a lost discussion with a sad note, and now trying to divert it into a sales pitch. Its a shame any thoughtfull discussion on actual practical matters is turned into a pathetic mudslinging competition. You may think you produce less dirty air for those close-by. All the people who clearly experienced a lot closer flying and witnessed the above discussed matter up close disagree...That aside...a cheaper solution to leadbelt or new suit would be to ask the base the USE the suit he/she is wearing... JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #84 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotefor reasons associated with the stress of the situation Im truly moved and feel sorry for your loss, but dont see why you suddenly skip the whole arguement, and start naming other reasons for flying a certain sized suit. . Because it's the suit I bought when I was 9 kg heavier. You and Butters have this asinine thinking that I should jump a smaller suit because I've lost weight. All this started because I stated that larger suits produce more disturbance and you disagreed ... it's your inability to admit you're wrong that is asinine."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mccordia 73 #85 May 24, 2011 Was the word asinine so impressive you had to type it in bold text, and repeat it twice in the same post?JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #86 May 24, 2011 QuoteWas the word asinine so impressive you had to type it in bold text, and repeat it twice in the same post? I can't make you look like an ass - you and Butters did it all by yourselves.... 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
kallend 1,623 #87 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotefor reasons associated with the stress of the situation Im truly moved and feel sorry for your loss, but dont see why you suddenly skip the whole arguement, and start naming other reasons for flying a certain sized suit. . Because it's the suit I bought when I was 9 kg heavier. You and Butters have this asinine thinking that I should jump a smaller suit because I've lost weight. All this started because I stated that larger suits produce more disturbance and you disagreed ... it's your inability to admit you're wrong that is asinine. What part of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy is it that you don't understand?... 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
mccordia 73 #88 May 24, 2011 You seem to understand the limited theory you seem to be able to apply okay. Its just a shame you're missing the bigger picture which turns it all into practical information applicable to the real world in which we flyYou're so far the only one who feels the need to throw one-liners, emotional pleas not releated to the discussion and judgemental words like fool, ass etc at other people instead of sticking to the subject. Fly a huge suit in flocks doing avg. speeds of 50/60 mph, and you feed people around you a lot more dirty air through whatever combination of turbulence/burble/deflection it may be. Its more than fine that you enjoy flying a carpet for maximum hangtime. But its not the perfect tool for the job you describe. Not at normal flocking speeds, not at the 80 mph freefall speeds you mentioned. You show up at a formula one race with a horse, and people will tell you its the wrong tool for the job at hand. They are not trying to make you buy a Formula one car. They are simply stating facts... Its a shame your inability to find the correct theoretical description limits you from having any meaningfull discussion on actual practical flying. Try flying closer than that silly 'record spacing' to experience it yourself.. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #89 May 24, 2011 The source of your confusion is clear. You confuse suit size with jumper mass because heavy jumpers generally wear larger suits. However, the conservation laws of physics are not suspended for WS jumpers. You make the same sort of error that freshman physics students make all the time. The energy that is imparted to the atmosphere in the form of a turbulent wake does not depend on suit size, it depends on mass and speed. A jumper + equipment with mass m (say, 80kg) falling at a steady fall rate v (say 40m/sec) is using up gravitation potential energy at a rate mgv (= 80*9.81*40) = 31,392 J/sec. or 31.4kW, which ends up as atmospheric disturbance. The size if his or her suit doesn't affect the answer. Now, if you had said that the nature of the turbulence was different, or the distance over which the wake extends was different for different suit sizes I would have agreed with you. However, in your anxiety to score cheap points that was NOT what you wrote.... 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
mccordia 73 #90 May 24, 2011 Quote The source of your confusion is clear. Its mostly caused by random highlighted bold text, and wasted attempts at explaining things you clearly dont grasp yourself... Again..there is more at work than simple 'turbulence' The shape/size of the suit deflecting air in other directions. The burble being a lot bigger. You can scream all you want with empty equations and theories that miss a lot (if not all) of the matter discussed...you're the one not getting it. ANYONE with actual flocking experience in close range to docked formations will be able to explain it to you. Shame its your pride that prevents you from looking outside the limited range of knowledge you display here... Again..there is a lot more at work that simple turbulence. The body positions needed to fly bigger suits at faster speeds spil air in a lot of different/angles and directions than smaller suits flown more optimal. Its not that hard to grasp. Maybe your big brain takes up to much space in a tiny skull...causing it to cramp up a bit...Relax...make some actual close range, docked formation jumps in a wingsuit....you'll get it at some pointJC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mccordia 73 #91 May 24, 2011 Kallend wrote: Quote Now, if you had said that the nature of the turbulence was different I actually did in almost every single post I made. It was you doing your mastubatory thing with theories missing half the effects related to bigger surface wingsuits that caused most of the fuss. Than went into namecalling and other things. But glad to see you finaly admit to Matt H, Matt S, Butters and all other people in this thread that they did get the actual practical points of the discussion everyone else was having...unlike you... Quote However, in your anxiety to score cheap points You could have easily said: guys...its not just turbulance, but a lot of other stuff I didnt think of right away that influences the wake/burble/turbulent area around a flyer....but I DO understand the effect you talk about... But you didnt. You where the one going for the cheap shots..calling everyone an idiot who didnt have your grasp of theory. Shame you skipped most other effects and the actual subject discussed in your efforts to call other people fools... But I guess this is the closest we'll ever come to seeing you admit to not being right...Hope that little sum and all the fancy numbers you posted makes you feel better. The truth is, most people only care knowing there is a 'burble' thats 'bigger' to translate it to use-able information for an actual skydive. You mostly added a lot of noise, yet no practical/usefull knowledge that will help anyone fly better....JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jonmurrell 0 #92 May 24, 2011 I believe this was the point from pages ago... Adding weights and more suit material increases mass. Larger suits have increased surface area vs smaller ones, creating more form drag, The conservation of energy will reflect this mass increase with larger friction forces; increased form drag will result in more disturbance. This will make flying closer to someone with a larger suit or a massive body more difficult. I'm both massive and fly large suits, come get an ankle dock on me This isn't flying, its falling with style. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #93 May 25, 2011 Quote Now, if you had said that the nature of the turbulence was different, or the distance over which the wake extends was different for different suit sizes I would have agreed with you. However, in your anxiety to score cheap points that was NOT what you wrote. Actually, what Butters originally said: "And your "large" suit is causing more turbulence for those around you than a "small" suit." Direct quote, emphasis added. If a certain flocker is a certain distance away from you, and experiencing zero turbulence (just outside your burble) with you wearing a small suit, and you then put on a larger suit, and increase the distance over which the wake extends... you would be causing more turbulence for that flocker. He would go from experiencing nothing, to something (regardless of the fact that your "total turbulence" remained unchanged - which isn't even the case here anyway, since you put on weight). Quote My solution to an 80mph fall rate is to wear my RW weight belt. It works, and I STILL produce less turbulence than the average American male Sure you do, but that wasn't the original issue. Butters wasn't comparing you to the average male. He was comparing you to yourself, in a smaller suit and without weight. With weight, you produce more turbulence than you would without the belt (and more turbulence for those around you - a larger field - just by wearing the suit). I asked you earlier twice to respond to a very simple logical deduction, and you ignore me both times. Since you won't discuss logic, I'll do it on my own. So far, you have: - twisted the original issue (comparing yourself to fat men rather than yourself without the belt) - made appeals to emotion (I am truly sorry for your loss as well but it has no place in this thread) - repeatedly insulted other posters by calling them asinine What's next? I'd still like a response to my deduction. I won't call you asinine, or tell you to "go learn some logic." But I will keep asking you to stop dodging the question. P.S. You are free to wear big suits and weight belts. I don't think it's stupid, or rude, nor do I want to sell you a smaller suit. However, it is FALSE to say that adding weight and large wings does not disturb the flockers around you more. Is it significant? Probably not (though that was never the question). But it is MORE. And you know it. www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #94 May 25, 2011 Quote A jumper + equipment with mass m (say, 80kg) falling at a steady fall rate v (say 40m/sec) is using up gravitation potential energy at a rate mgv (= 80*9.81*40) = 31,392 J/sec. or 31.4kW, which ends up as atmospheric disturbance. The size if his or her suit doesn't affect the answer. If you want to be specific than go weigh a T-Bird and an S-Bird ... do they weigh the same? No. The size of his or her suit does affect the answer. PS: Now add a weight belt. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
michalm21 0 #95 May 25, 2011 This thread reminds me why this forum sucks I'm going jumping Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #96 May 25, 2011 Quote Quote A jumper + equipment with mass m (say, 80kg) falling at a steady fall rate v (say 40m/sec) is using up gravitation potential energy at a rate mgv (= 80*9.81*40) = 31,392 J/sec. or 31.4kW, which ends up as atmospheric disturbance. The size if his or her suit doesn't affect the answer. If you want to be specific than go weigh a T-Bird and an S-Bird ... do they weigh the same? No. The size of his or her suit does affect the answer. PS: Now add a weight belt. Grasping at straws now?... 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
kallend 1,623 #97 May 25, 2011 Re-read post #12. Butters' statement was: "Smaller suits also cause less disruption to the air flow around them, making it easier for others." Nothing there about weight or fall rate, just suit size. The statement is factually incorrect as it stands.... 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
LukeH 0 #98 May 25, 2011 Actually I think he's poking fun at you being a pedant. The point is that even if you want to be a pedant, your own point \ argument trips you up too. This thread is depressing..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #99 May 25, 2011 Quote Quote Quote A jumper + equipment with mass m (say, 80kg) falling at a steady fall rate v (say 40m/sec) is using up gravitation potential energy at a rate mgv (= 80*9.81*40) = 31,392 J/sec. or 31.4kW, which ends up as atmospheric disturbance. The size if his or her suit doesn't affect the answer. If you want to be specific than go weigh a T-Bird and an S-Bird ... do they weigh the same? No. The size of his or her suit does affect the answer. PS: Now add a weight belt. Grasping at straws now? Are you asking yourself? After all, I've been right from the beginning ... a larger suit causes more disturbance, a larger suit with a weight belt causes more disturbance, and a larger suit has a larger area of disturbance. Having trouble admitting you're wrong now?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #100 May 25, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote A jumper + equipment with mass m (say, 80kg) falling at a steady fall rate v (say 40m/sec) is using up gravitation potential energy at a rate mgv (= 80*9.81*40) = 31,392 J/sec. or 31.4kW, which ends up as atmospheric disturbance. The size if his or her suit doesn't affect the answer. If you want to be specific than go weigh a T-Bird and an S-Bird ... do they weigh the same? No. The size of his or her suit does affect the answer. PS: Now add a weight belt. Grasping at straws now? Are you asking yourself? After all, I've been right from the beginning ... a larger suit causes more disturbance, a larger suit with a weight belt causes more disturbance, and a larger suit has a larger area of disturbance. Having trouble admitting you're wrong now? "Smaller suits also cause less disruption to the air flow around them, making it easier for others." is NOT in agreement with the fundamental conservation laws of physics, for reasons already explained.... 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
