• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

1 Neutral

Jump Profile

  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. aonsquared

    Audibles with adjustable volume?

    First is I would recommend wearing foam ear plugs to protect your hearing - I've just started doing this and to my amazement I could actually hear conversations in the plane over the earplugs, yet the noise level was reduced to a comfortable level. I also had no problem hearing my audible. I'm sure any would do fine, although I am a bit biased, as I do work for the company who makes the Brilliant Pebbles (which the volume could be set to 255 different levels so you should be able to get exactly the alarm volume you need) Most other audibles I've seen can control the volume as well (the NeoXS had 4 different volume settings if I remember correctly).
  2. Electric aircraft can also have something like regenerative braking for cars, and recover some energy on the descent, reducing the recharge needed between lifts and reducing total fuel cost even further. Regular engines can't do that. The charging time is still a problem for quick turnarounds common in skydiving, but battery tech is improving quickly.
  3. aonsquared

    Freefall Speed

    Actually, a Flysight would probably be even better, as it uses GPS and is not dependent on barometric pressure.
  4. aonsquared

    Ares II or Viso II+

    AON2 X2 For how much the AresII is, you might as well get GPS and a colour screen (disclaimer: yes I do work for AON2!)
  5. aonsquared

    Wingsuit research

    Sorry But my suggestion is to look at flow separation - it happens really early on wingsuits, creating lots of extra drag and wasting that extra surface area. Somehow find a way to keep that boundary layer attached, and you can cut drag way down. Keep lift the same, and your L/D will shoot up :)
  6. aonsquared

    Wingsuit research

    We'll have to agree to disagree on the 'unnecessary' bit - if it's not useful to you, so be it. I shall now get back to my own work and stop arguing Carry on!
  7. aonsquared

    Wingsuit research

    So given accelerations in X and Y, resolve the forces to tangent (D) and perpendicular (L) to the velocity vector in a uniform gravitational field, g. Yes, you get: L/D = (gVx-AyVx+AxVy)/(gV_y-VyAy-VxAx) It's high school level mathematics. How does this invalidate standard aerodynamic equations? How is this revolutionary? What other things do they say? That was Yuri's claim. That's why I kept asking if his equations gave anything more than L/D, which he never answered. When I said they were wrong, it was because my definition of "flight" did not include completely ballistic trajectories, which this L/D includes (I still think it's silly, but it's just a matter of convention). So at least for this L/D equation, I take my statement back. (Yuri will of course start dancing and try to include me in his "religion", no thanks ) So in short, the "WSE" is a way to calculate accelerations given velocities, then resolving them in the "lift-drag" coordinate system. Not wrong, but not new, nor novel or groundbreaking. But since Yuri's stopped insulting standard aerodynamics, I see no reason to keep arguing
  8. aonsquared

    Wingsuit research

    You wish. Excellent strategy though, just keep spamming the thread, and avoid engaging experts who can actually see through your claims. People will believe you eventually
  9. aonsquared

    Wingsuit research

    You know what they say about those who shout the loudest...
  10. aonsquared

    Wingsuit research

    You're not going to get any straight answers from him, he'll just post more photos of his vane and some unrelated rants. Yuri's conclusion for the max L/D ratio is not because of his equations, he's actually concluded that the human planform will have a lower limit to drag which will limit L/D. Which is quite reasonable overall, except that he set that lower limit to one of his graphs and declared that it's impossible to go lower He uses neither Bernoulli's equation nor Euler's formula - it's way more basic than that. Yuri, besides L/D ratio, do your equations say anything else useful?
  11. aonsquared

    Wingsuit research

    What else does the "WSE" give besides L/D? How do the "WSE" invalidate standard aerodynamic equations? There's a lot of noise in this thread, and it's definitely *not* coming from LeeroyJenkins.
  12. aonsquared

    Wingsuit research

    We need to clarify terms. With proving them wrong, do you mean mathematical proof, or physical proof? Ever heard of proof by contradiction?
  13. aonsquared

    Wingsuit research

    According to your earlier posts, do your wingsuit equations assume that either: a) L points perpendicular to the trajectory curve? Or b) L always points "up" opposite the gravity vector? Or c) perpendicular to the wingsuiter? Just trying to establish your conventions.
  14. aonsquared

    Wingsuit research

    Platypii, I think you need to step back here and look at your logical reasoning. You made a hypothesis (L/D ratio is roughly constant on this flight), then measured ground Vx and Vy through GPS. Then critically, without measuring lift nor drag nor its ratio with any other method, you say that since the L/D calculated from yuri's equations looks like your hypothesis, then it must be correct. You looked at glide ratio varying wildly and stayed on this train of thought: "it doesn't match my hypothesis, so it must be wrong". (and yes, instantaneous GR is definitely not a sensible aerodynamic measure, but instantaneous GR being wrong doesn't automatically mean yuri's equations are correct) But why not use any number that stays roughly constant? I can multiply air density by 2.44 and tell you it's L/D ratio for your flight, and it would match your hypothesis better than the GR data, but there would be no logic behind it. To properly prove something, it needs to be able to make predictions that are independently verifiable, and not just because it "looks" right.
  15. aonsquared

    Wingsuit research

    Thanks for the plot. Now it's a bit clearer. First off - instantaneous glide ratio is not a measure of L/D ratio and should not be. In the flat part of a flare (vertical speed = 0 for a fraction of a second) then instantaneous glide ratio would be infinity. However average glide ratio over the entire flight can give an indication of total L/D ratio. So if you integrate the area under the glide ratio curve then average over the interval, you should get to a similar value. You still need PDOP values though, as no instrument is perfectly accurate even with filtering. And you need to post filtering details is difficult, but it does pay off when done properly and without taking shortcuts