KrisFlyZ

That data sounds right. I don't need any proof. Would still be very nice to see the Paralog profile. Just curious as to how the speed varied over the course of the jump. I'd guess that it was slowest for the first third of the jump. Wonder what Perry is doing in the Mach1? Kris.

Really nice looking suit. Maybe I am not seeing this right...it looks like a standard tube PC(not a single attachment point) with some tape on it. Kris.

Nice pics!! Guy in the Prodigy is not screwing around is he? Weather looks nice. That modification makes the legwing look like a phantom legwing...Maybe he should trademark Phantigy . Kris.

52 mph is pretty good. I see you got a head start on the acrobatics kris.

Even to someone jumping a Spectre? I thought that all PD canopies were measured the same way. To the guy that started this thread, the reserve canopy flies a bit differently than the main. Try to get a demo canopy(the 193 reserve) from PD and jump it as a main. It seems to be a pretty good deal. Kris.

First thing is to appreciate that the for a glider, the relative wind is always coming at the glide angle. Then rest of this post will make sense. Let us look at this AoA = ARCTAN(1/(L/D)) - ARCTAN(1/(L/D)) is the glide angle. For a canopy, the is what is usualy called the trim angle. This angle can also be thought of as the angle of incidence. is the definition of angle of incidence and unless I am making a blunder(please point it out if you can spot it) the longitudinal axis of the 'aircraft'(that is the jumper under canopy) is the horizon. Are angle of attack and angle of incidence directly related? No, as I have stated in my first post to this thread. Changing the angle of incidence (we can do this for canopies by pulling down on both front or both rear risers by the same amount) will indirectly change the angle of attack. Angle of incidence is the input we can change to change the Angle of Attack. Is there a simple relationship between the AoA and AoI? No. Is there a relationship at all? Yes, the equation above. For powered aircraft that can fly at any L/D they want I may have oversimplified when I said. Again, if we are talking about the wing only, I still think pitch == AoI when we are talking about the canopy, lines and jumper. Pulling down on front risers increases the AoI but does it reduce AoA? Can't really tell because we know that the L/D of our canopy has reduced when we pull down on the front risers. This means that the value of glide angle(the arctan bit) is higher. Whether AoA has increased or decreased depends on how much we pull down the risers by and the resultant L/D. Pulling down the rear risers decreases the AoI but also increases L/D. This means that the glide angle is also lesser and we cannot directly guess the if the resultant AoA is higher or lower. Kris.

No need to practice opening in a full track. Just practice exits with your arms by your sides and a wingsuit style pull and keep your arms at your sides thru the deployment sequence. If you are really keen, you can Unzip imaginary wings before reaching up or whatever. Kris.

Well, that's not really true... at least not necessarily. You can be in level flight at any angle of attack. Take a parachute as an example... angle of incidence is always going to be negative (the nose is lower than the tail), but the angle of attack is always going to be positive (otherwise it'd collapse). Pitch is a function of angle of attack and angle of incidence... could be anything. Dave Yes, for level flight at zero pitch, AoA = AoI. pitch = angle of incidence for the wing of the parachute. Note that I have not included the lines or the jumper. However, if the whole system changed pitch, the pitch of the wing would have a direct relation to the pitch of the system. If the pitch of the system was 5 degrees below the horizon. The pitch of the wing would be increased 5 degrees and so on...when there is no slack in the lines, the geometry of the system is maintained. Angle of Attack is then a function of glide angle and pitch of the wing or the pitch of the system. Kris.

I am a bit confused...Are you talking about pitch of the canopy + jumper as a whole? Because pulling down on the risers is definately changing the pitch of the wing( just the airfoil part of the canopy...no lines, no jumper). or angle of attack = angle of flight - trim angle Which is what I have been saying. Kris.

You are only reading parts of what I wrote. I did not say that a parachute flying at 2.5 to 1 has an angle of attack of 22 degrees. The glide angle is 22 degrees. if the parchutes wing had a zero pitch, the angle of attack would be 22 degrees but... The wing of the parachute points downward to reduce the Angle of Attack. A Sabre2 135 has a chord of 7.23 ft...if the rear lines(brakelines without any slack) are longer than the front lines by 15 inches that is a 10 degree reduction in Angle of Attack. Parachutes are low aspect ratio wings(typically AR of less than 3) and we cannot use FoilSim for everything. Foilsim does not take into account vortex lift from leading edge seperation. My understanding is that this delays stall. Check out this link. The following sections are quoted from the link above. While there is not a number for the angle at which wings of 2< AR < 3 stall, it does illustrate one important point. Not all wings stall at 15 degrees or thereabouts.

Maybe I am missing something here( when I say pitch I meant pitch of the wing only...not the system) but... I think the definitions we have used are the same. Pitch and Angle of Attack Level flight is just a special case AoA = Angle of incidence and pitch is zero, so is gliding flight, the freestream velocity is coming at the glide angle. If the wing of the canopy was horizontal, AoA is equal to the glide angle. 2.5 to 1(generally aceepted as the glide of a modern square parachute ) is an Anglw of Attack of 22 degrees. If the glide is less than that the angle of attack is more. That is why the wings on all the canopies point downward by atleast 5 degrees. Kris.

The relative wind is coming at the glide angle. The angle of attack(AoA) of a glider with a glide ratio of L/D is AoA = ArcTan(D/L) - pitch pitch in the equation above is measured below the horizon. The canopy is trimmed nose down so that the AoA is less than the stall angle. Pitch is determined by the difference in line lengths in the front and the back of the canopy and the canopy's chord length. While giving the canopy different riser inputs, we are changing the pitch and consequently, the angle of attack. While pitch and AoA are not directly related, pitch is the input we can give(while using risers) to that equation above and consequently change AoA. Why can we stall the wing easily with the risers? Because the pitch can be reduced drastically by yanking down(a 10 degree change in the pitch can be affected by pulling down the risers on a Sabre2 170(chord length 7.2ft) by 15 inches) on the risers and increase the AoA beyond the stall point. Using brakes does not change pitch but changes L/D by changing wing shape. Decrease AoA = increase pitch and reduce L/D == pull on front risers Increase AoA = Decrease Pitch (and possibly increase L/D) == pull on rear risers Applying brakes = change L/D. Kris.

The flight smoke looks like it is in a vortex in holy smoke. Did not notice that before. Even though I had that video on my computer and have looked at it several times. The smoke on this one at the end of this flight shows turbulence well. I was expecting that kind of airflow after looking at the video(the threads on the wing) posted by Andy. My own attempts to film airflow over the wing have been unsuccesful so far the camera mounting is off. Kris.

Where can I get 'Holy Smoke'? Kris.

Not in the turbulent airflow? We have all seen them on the videos. I was watching the fly-the-line trailer and noticed that the smoke trail shows clean airflow. From the flyer's perspective it even looks like it bends down a little(maybe due to the angle the smoke cannister makes with the flyers body). I don't have the videos handy but even in flocking videos, I cannot recall smoke trails look like they were in horribly turbulent airflow. Most flockers/skydivers have physically felt the burble(might be a different kind of burble to the one being discussed). We have seen videos of PCs get sucked into the burble. With a wingsuit the burble is bigger(?) and behind us. Roughly in the same direction as the smoke trail. Why is the smoke not in turbulent air? Kris.

I like the size but how do you log the data? kris.

Good point! Yuri did mention that in his post though Kris.

Very cool!! Kris.

There will be a lot of people that do less than 30 fixed object jumps a year. I am one of them. Then again, I don't call myself a BASE jumper. I am just a fair weather big E jumper. Kris.

No, I meant honestly trying to sitfly . He claimed he was abled to hold it for a while and we talked about getting a pic of that in the Mag. Someone from SDC has to check with him. Cant wait for the coming weekend Get some footage!! Kris.

Jeramiah(SDC) said he tried sit flying in the classic. Have flown with an RW formation and tracking dives. Swooping canopies is the best(yes, yes when it has been arranged beforehand). Kris.

7 cells and lighter wing loading is the difference...it is harder to get line twists on these canopies. Kris.

If you have road signs indicating elevation...you can calibrate the unit that makes the altitude readings more accurate. I always keep the unit on and turn recording on just before I exit. It is easy to figure out when I exited afterwards and discard the data that is recorded for the part in the airplane. Kris.

No, I have not seen anyone wear full body protection when jumping a wingsuit or tracking. Kneepads(with shingaurds) Back Protector and Helmet is the most that I have seen. Kris.

I have the same setup Antenna + GPSMAP 76CSX. However, due to our winter airplane(Beaver), I don't use the big GPS. The mounting point you see a bit below the antenna is for an Edge 205/305. I am using these with the small airplane. How accurate is the unit's altitude(76 CSX) reading? You have it inside your jumpsuit, correct? Kris.