• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

0 Neutral


  • Main Canopy Size
  • Reserve Canopy Size
  • AAD

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Skydive Pepperell
  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
  • Number of Jumps
  • Years in Sport
  • First Choice Discipline
    Wing Suit Flying
  • First Choice Discipline Jump Total
  • Second Choice Discipline
    Wing Suit Flying
  • Second Choice Discipline Jump Total

Ratings and Rigging

  • USPA Coach
  • Pro Rating
  1. Took me a bit to realize my sense of humor should be handling this. The correct answer is, no, you haven't seen the suit. You've seen a picture of the suit. Your opinion and credibility will be given equivalent weight to your knowledge and experience with a suit that size. There being only one of them, which you have never actually seen, by all means, please, tell me all about it. I wonder if Luigi had to put up with this crap? -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  2. Nope. Once you get used to it, it is surprisingly not-awkward. Flies just fine with airlocks open wide with little pressurization, (just gets a very wide fallrate range, makes it easy to fly it dirty with a flock) and flies like a dream with the airlocks totally closed, although fully closed renders it almost impossible to fly with other suits. I've had jumps where the fallrate never topped 38 mph whether I was trying to fall slow, or not. -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  3. You haven't seen the suit, have you? -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  4. Have you ever tried to measure the surface area of a 3 dimensional object the size of a very large wingsuit? You'd need a nailgun to get it to stay put enough to measure properly and that doesn't count curves. Now let's see you do it on a suit wide enough to hang off both sides of a queen bed mattress. When it was stretched out on the floor at Zhills, we took a Petra 69, folded it in half, and laid the Albatross II over it. It hid the entire canopy. We all looked at it and went, shit, that'd be a 35 square foot freakin' suit! And let it go at that. Roughly measured by yanking various chunks of the suit flat and throwing a tape measure across it, the thing is at least 6 feet from shoulder to tailtip, 5 foot 5" maybe 5 foot 6"wingspan gripper to gripper depending on how tight you've got it pulled, and some additional surface area added forward of the shoulders by moderate forward rake. It takes the form of nearly a square with a bunch of minor detail features hanging off it. The grippers alone were 21". Best estimate given crude and unsophisticated measurements and available evidence against a canopy, I'm callin' it 33-35 square feet not counting me face. You wanna argue with it, you come measure it. 6x5 would be 30. The A2 was 6x5 plus a bunch of big chunks of change when inflated. The A3 makes even that look small. We lost some wingspan by making the forward rake, but made up for it in sprawled-out inflation, hung a lot more wing both forward and aft, on 24" grippers. There's spots where the thing is almost 7 feet from gripper held forward of my head to tailtip, and counting cell slack, stretches almost as wide as the last one did. In the A3, the leading edge point of the aircraft isn't my head, it's my hands. The body position is a cross between flying squirrel and Superman. I don't GIVE a damn exactly how big it is. Just WHAT it is. If the mechanic plays out as well as the last two did, the Albatross IIIa Expansion Pack gets built. The body position the A3 is built around, was done to enable supporting much, more wing area than even this. I'd like to see if I can push this to the mid-50's, low-60's. -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  5. The goal is to develop a suit that flies like a canopy- in every way.
  6. 5 foot 10". If you're wondering about the 35 square feet, it's simple. We folded a Petra 69 in half and laid the Albatross II over it. The Petra disappeared. The A-II was more than half the size of a 69 even without being pulled totally flat. -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  7. Next couple of weeks. We spent the better part of two years hammering this one out on paper. Jake absolutely nailed it in one shot. The fit is perfect. The grippers drop into my hands just right. The toes go exactly as tight as I want them to, when I want them to. The wingspan matches what we mapped out, so perfectly that at full span, I get exactly the tension in my thumbs holding the grippers just by fingertips, that I wanted. Best estimate is 38-40 square feet. The last one was a solid 35. This is... more. A lot more. Feels totally flyable. The last one was. This was entirely designed around a skillset I built up over the last 4 years flying suits almost that big. The suit looks insane, but it's the apex of a very long and patient growth curve. Should fly like a slightly baggy Albatross II, with improved range of motion and a much bigger wallop when flared. -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  8. Not anymore, it's not. The Albatross III exists. The Albatross II is no longer the biggest suit in my fleet. Not even close. Use your imagination. -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  9. What's the latest on that guy Antoine anyway? Any.of these things work, put any mileage on em? I'd love to know how some of his creations flew. He -is- still alive? Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  10. Totally got me on cool factor, man. My ride's cool, but my ride ain't got rockets. Your wingsuit actually has freaking rockets. Rockets. Damn. -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  11. The A-II? I was flying it that way to keep it -down- with that canopy. If I had opened it out all the way with the leading edge -not- partially collapsed to keep that thing on a leash, it would have outflown the canopy and I would have had to fly it steeply head-down to get the CG right for a power level like that anyway. The flight regime on display in that image is a controlled half-stall which is how you use a suit that big at the bottom edge of its power curve. I had to fly it dirty to keep it on a leash. To my knowledge there is no suit that can stay with it when it is opened all the way. It occupies a largely-unexplored range between normal wingsuits and canopies. It may be useless for competition so far, but this line of research has resulted in a suit with more sheer annihilating air traction than anything else I ever flew. There are suits that fly faster, suits that fly further, and suits that fly longer. But there are no suits that do what this one does. I do not care if I can win competitions with this thing. Learning to fly it is reward enough. Special thanks to Tony for being willing to build me something -that- far off the map from a bunch of drawings. Suit worked, old man, it worked. The workmanship in that thing is as world-class as it gets, I want to fly nothing else. I owe you one. -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  12. I'd noted these guys a ways back... if I remember right, at first the stated goal was to apply all sorts of engineering techniques to design a wingsuit with a superior glide meant to win at the next world cup. Their release info included pretty pictures of graphics and simulations. I paid attention briefly but without all that much interest because I was pretty sure I knew the fate of this one before they even got started. I've seen this approach before. It doesn't work. I was wondering how long it was going to take for these guys to figure that out. There've been a few other attempts of a similar nature, usually loaded with as many trendy engineering-school buzzwords and jargon as humanly possible. "We will use the latest in data acquisition technology combined with digital physics simulation and computational fluid dynamics to characterize the lift to drag ratio until we have grepped the succotash to a flux capacitor inhibiting boundary layer detachment leading to a mathematically proven superior suit design." In every case it becomes more about finding ways to apply those jazzy engineering-school tools to the job regardless of whether or not it will be effective. It never is. They invariably produce lots and lots of analysis diagrams and flow charts and mathematical gibberish and whatnot, none of which ever yields a detectable let alone decisive improvement in suit design. We aren't designing an Airbus, here, where all factors except the air itself are rigid and can be characterized and defined and analyzed and the improvements are black and white. The performance of a suit is far more the pilot than it is the suit. When the range of performance can vary by 30-50% depending on exactly how the pilot handles it, a 3% improvement in the aerodynamics of the suit, produced after months of designing data collection hardware, analysis protocols, doing simulations, designing your improvement, building the suit... Doesn't even show. At all. Lost in the noise to insignificance. A slightly better pilot in an inferior suit will beat it repeatedly. Whereas, the direct route... Build a suit. Try it. See how it does. Think about how the suit flies, think up how you'd change it to improve it based on intuitive sense of handling and how far the suit actually flew, then just build another one and try it again... That approach led directly from Birdman Classic 1 to the Tony Suits -Bird series not to mention Squirrel's current dominant offerings. Last I saw they were working on their mathematically proven Athena helmet that was supposed to be the big magic improvement to beat everybody. I think everyone in the project probably graduated before producing anything except a swoopy looking helmet that looks just like other equally swoopy helmets designed without a terabyte of computational fluid dynamics behind them. But, we demonstrated our ability to apply CFD to a physics problem, yay! -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  13. Sorry, brother but I gotta weigh in with Matt and Doc, here. You're trying to pull data from a source that doesn't produce the data you want. I'm currently experimenting with an unusually large-surface-area suit with some unusually bizarre properties and an unusually wide range of flight modes, shapes and settings. It is an extreme example of the range of pressures 111 was referring to. I can depressurize the thing until it is almost limp in flight, to reduce the drag and make it easier to manipulate the fabric areas, or I can zip it up drum-tight and it acquires the handling and feel of a raft dive, where most of its handling properties are dominated by sheer scale and inflation pressure. The internal pressure inside this set of wings has almost no relation to its airspeed. I can fly it fast with high pressure, which just puts a sharp speed limit on the top end due to drag, or I can fly it just as fast with almost no pressure, which simply allows me to fly it faster than that. I can fly it slow with no pressure, resulting in nimble handling properties, or I can fly it slow, while pressurized to the max and so rigid that deploying past it is a -major- technical challenge. The range of internal pressures available bears almost no relation to airspeed unless I've stalled the thing to an almost complete stop. One setting might get me 5 PSI doing 40 with the zips shut... another setting might get me that same pressure with the zips wide open and the suit being flown so hard in a balls-out 170 mph dive that it's almost coming apart and a hurricane of airflow passing through the suit. An internal pressure measurement system is mostly just going to indicate how closed the winglock zippers are, with airspeed a distant second-place in terms of how much effect it has on the internal pressure. This is complicated even more by the fact that that internal pressure is also variable at any given airspeed by the angle of attack I'm currently using and how much the air inlets are scooping air as a result. I could choke off the instrument just by changing shape and altering the presentation of the inlets to the airflow with no change in airspeed. Or by changing shape so that although the inlets are still presented the same way, my arms are occupying a different part of the armwing sleeve and allowing free-er airflow through the zips and out the sleeves. Simply moving around inside the wing will create more noise in the data and of a wider range than the data you're trying to measure. You could set up something that was verifyably measuring accurately -when flown a certain particular way-, but that measurement could be made wildly inaccurate just by flying the suit differently. I think you're going to find that relative to any modelling you do, the best you're ever going to see is a few frames here, a few frames there, brief transients where the conditions happen to pass through the range where the device's specs, the suit pressure and the airspeed actually align and result in a measurement that happens to be accurate- for half a second. It'd be like having a speedometer in the car that is affected by everything from the speeds of other nearby cars, to the steering wheel and how fast you turn it, to whether or not you've got the windows open and how far, to the texture of the road you're driving on. Watching such a speedometer would result in a reading that was very visibly nonsense and would simply look like the speedo was broken. Too many uncontrollable and unquantifiable variables to calibrate around. Besides, why reinvent the wheel? We already have a very good, lightweight and compact way to measure our airspeed. GPS. -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  14. That little green S-biner hack is elegant as fuck. -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
  15. Gorgeous image. Might I offer a live-action version? Video by the late great Nebelkopf. Pilot: Me. Suit: S-Bird. -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.