LeeroyJenkins

Oops, I missed this was post cut away. Pull your reserve and get as big as possible, it will slow your rotations down.

Tracking is the best way to get out of a flat spin.

PD Spector is where its at.

There ya go, honestly is nice.

With the chaos of openings your sample size it not enough to prove anything.

Also means the USPA can be sued for not supervising THEIR Group Members. If you are going to "sanction" something, you better know exactly what's going on there. J That would be an absurd legal standard.

Don't mislead people, steady state means GR and L/D are equal.

Yep, like I said... Strawmen. And you will notice in the other quotes I use quotation marks. And your edit.... that the best you have? Might want to read the pledge the DZO is supposed to sign: https://uspa.org/Portals/0/files/Man_GM.pdf "As a person with operational control, I pledge to:" That is a promise. And we have clear evidence that the USPA does not hold the DZO to it, but we only have that proof and knowledge because we have been in the sport for a while. Heck, even some jumpers in this thread think a GM DZ is safer. You have nothing but strawmen. I should have stopped wasting my time a while ago, but I kept hoping you would bring something of substance.... You didn't. As obelixtim said... It is pretty clear. You just are arguing to argue at this point. You have fun with that. Lol, Ron, all I did was post quotes of things you said so everyone can see what you said. I need your position to stop changing before I can argue against it. “The best I have” is a quote of you using the word promise. Saying that the USPA promises it’s member DZ are safe. You then posted in the comment I’m replying too that’s it is a promise. I’m still not making an argument against your stance, still asking you questions. I see you also posted the group member pledge. Where the DZ pledges (promises in your words) to the USPA that it will follow their rules. No where do I see a promise from USPA to the masses that it’s member DZ are safe. Ron, can you show us where the USPA says that it promises it’s member DZ are “certified “safe” as you like to say? As of now it appears you think that if that is incorrect or not what you mean you can make this easier for everyone, just post your position clearly and precisely in your next comment with no BS.

Oh damn your right. That suit is not the one I was picturing. Don’t get an ATC. The hands free thing is still true.

This poll shows otherwise. The "poll" is asking skydivers, not whuffos. And? Skydivers don't normally look at the USPA website to find a place to learn to skydive. Also, it is not limited to "new" people in the sport. I guy that has been jumping 45 years 'knows' more than a guy that has yet to get a license. But I think you knew that. Again, strawman from you. Is this the best you are going to do? If so, don't expect me to continue to play your game. Lol, Ron I didn't even make an argument, and I'm not misrepresenting your stance. There could be no strawman. I asked you a follow up question and I have another question. Where does the illusion of safety come from? I mean you moved the goalposts from "guaranteeing that a DZ is safe" to "giving the illusion that its safe" so I am just trying to clarify your stance. Its really not that difficult to anyone with half a functioning brain. Anyone who knows nothing about skydiving, researching options, would naturally assume that an operation belonging to a national organisation, would by so doing, be compliant with any rules or protocols that organisation promulgates. Especially when it has US as part of its title. Most national organisations have some sort of code of conduct. Any operation not a member of USPA, would prolly be regarded as a cowboy outfit. Why would you not be a member unless you didn't want to follow the rules? That would be the perception of most people. Most skydivers would know differently. Hence the poll results. Ron's stance has been sliding all over the place. I am just trying to lock his position and argument down. This whole thing started because he decided it was the USPA's job to post here and tell us what happen because it seems to him this is a really big deal.

ATC, grips dont matter as you dont need to hold them .

Just a reminder for you Ron. Really wish I could find the one where you used the terms promise or guarantee. Seems like it was part of a deleted comment of yours. Either way the above comments make it very clear certifying DZ as safe is something you think the USPA does. Edit: Winner winner chicken dinner. So yeah, you 100% believe the USPA promise its GM DZ are safe. Sorry Bud

Yep, more strawmen.... ***I mean you moved the goalposts from "guaranteeing that a DZ is safe" to "giving the illusion that its safe" so I am just trying to clarify your stance. There never has been a "guaranty" of safety, only the ILLUSION of the guaranty of safety to people who are uniformed. You are ignoring the point and instead trying to distract. I am done wasting my time. You really need me to go back through your post history and find the one where you literally said that about the USPA? Did you forget? lol I ask you questions to clarify your point, you call it a strawman, then you say I am ignoring the point and distracting. I am asking you questions directly related to the topic.

This poll shows otherwise. The "poll" is asking skydivers, not whuffos. And? Skydivers don't normally look at the USPA website to find a place to learn to skydive. Also, it is not limited to "new" people in the sport. I guy that has been jumping 45 years 'knows' more than a guy that has yet to get a license. But I think you knew that. Again, strawman from you. Is this the best you are going to do? If so, don't expect me to continue to play your game. Lol, Ron I didn't even make an argument, and I'm not misrepresenting your stance. There could be no strawman. I asked you a follow up question and I have another question. Where does the illusion of safety come from? I mean you moved the goalposts from "guaranteeing that a DZ is safe" to "giving the illusion that its safe" so I am just trying to clarify your stance.

By the way, this is a monotonic function of L/D, so that the higher L/D, the higher the lift. So, if higher L/D is achieved with a smaller suit/system, this smaller suit will have more lift than a big mattress! Paradoxical, but absolutely true. Ahhh, when you say L/D you aren't actually talking about the airfoil shape lift coefficient. You're talking about experimental overall L/D. Right? Yep. No, not interested, have absolutely no need in this. It's just a way to slow thing down. One doesn't need to do years of schooling and tens, hundreds of thousands of $$$ to cut some foam wings. I've already spent way too much of my life in academia. Sr. Projects normally cover 1 semester. You want help but you don't want that help. You sure want a lot of things but don't want to do what is needed to achieve them. Starting to seem like you just want to hear yourself talk without taking action. What country ore you in?

By the way, this is a monotonic function of L/D, so that the higher L/D, the higher the lift. So, if higher L/D is achieved with a smaller suit/system, this smaller suit will have more lift than a big mattress! Paradoxical, but absolutely true. Ahhh, when you say L/D you aren't actually talking about the airfoil shape lift coefficient. You're talking about experimental overall L/D. Right? Find a local university with an mechanical or aerospace engineering program. This sounds like it could be a good Sr. Project or masters thesis.

This poll shows otherwise. The "poll" is asking skydivers, not whuffos. And?

Also if you are just visiting https://uspa.org/Membership/Individual-Membership

Increase in L/D has value by itself, regardless of what surface area is doing. We don't have to extend the trailing edge of the leg wing past feet. Suits also didn't have extended leg wings right from the start. It may come later, in the process of experimentation. That's not true. Half-WS is very, very fast. In fact, so fast that fully braking (in boxman position) for 5 seconds is not enough, I get hard openings (on my BASE canopy) from residual speed. WS/2 is faster than WS because arms are not sticking out to the sides, and L/D is naturally closer to optimal 1.4 when there's optimal balance between the component of gravity along the flight path ("gravitational thrust") and the projection of the total speed on the ground, resulting in max Vx possible. If Area is decreased more than L/D is increased the wing will generate less lift. That is a fact. Arm wing tension. WS/2 Prove it. You have said multiple times that it will be faster. Show me Vx data that back that up. Also show me distance traveled.

This poll shows otherwise.

Someone who has been around awhile, whats so special about this plane? Google was no help.

This thread started with you complaining about MWM not doing research which has been shown to be false. They do conduct research they just don't conduct the type of research you want. They also don't conduct that research because they have no interest in making a suit for a couple people. You want a highly specialized suit that only a few people will ever use because its impractical for skydiving and every day use. You want some high L/D suit without caring about the fact that the decrease is surface area would likely make the suit slower (Vx) and have less glide. You want a suit with no arm wing which again would be slower (Vx) You however don't want to put in the time or work to actually do any of the R/D yourself. I know your not good at building things thats clear. Find people that have enough extra time that can help you. Maybe tone down the crazy a bit as to not scare them away. Again stop criticizing the MWM because they aren't your competition. It's like you complain about them just because you need someone to complain about. You have different goals, you have different visions, and you hav very different markets. It will turn people away from your ideas, again, because what you want and what the average skydiver wants is extremely different.

What is the point of increasing L/D if the increase is not proportionally equal too or greater than the decrease in area? How do you plan to put tension on the trailing edge if its not attached to the foot of the suit? Right now we can use our feet and arms to tension it. If you remove the foot attachment you won't be able to get the outside as tight. Why? What is the point of that when it's impractical?

Sure it will always suck, but it will suck less. Here, we have approx. 3:1 aspect ratio for the arm wing (tip to tip) and about 1.5-2:1 for the leg wing. Vs. 0.5-0.7:1 for one "flying squirrel" wing. Any aerodynamicist will take 3:1 wing over 0.5:1 any day! We need to build it to find out. We can't just dismiss it outright. Small wings do generate lift, somehow my Prodigy and my Phantom-1 supported 260lbs of this meatbomb for hundreds of flights... Of course they will provide lift. They will However provide less lift. Any inovation in sutes needs to me wildly applicable and increase lift. You need to be able to fill a plane with them before you can claim you revolutionized the market. In your picture how are you going to support the trailing edge?

Yuri, you aren’t competing with modern wingsuits. You aren’t even making a modern wingsuit. You’re making something highly specialized that's closer to jetman. Every time you bring up mainstream suit manufactures you make yourself seem more and more dilusional. If you want people to give a shit about what you think or say you need to stop doing that. Besides being an engineer I work in politics. Your optics suck. You sound like Kanye or Trump. I’m not trying to attacking you, just giving you some harsh true feedback. Without building a fixed wing structure the aspect ratio will always suck because humans are shaped like a T. You keep complaining about MWS marketing and you post lies in this thread. Lies that people may actually believe. Increasing Cl and decreasing Cd will not make a suit fly faster and further if the ratio of that increase with the reduction in surface area is not proportional. you can have nice perfect smooth wings that won't mean anything because they do not generate enough lift.