Search the Community

optimum or speed reserve Pulse or cayenne light. I put a 130 cayenne comfortably into a rig that was built for a sub 100 sq ft. Fluid wings isn't selling their lineup yet but they have the lowest bulk parachutes Na' Cho' Cheese

While if you re-read your own text, your in essence saying that the big suits dont respond to small body movements well. 'they fly themselves' is the same you could say for a huge canopy. But when it comes to harness inputs and small body movements, those are the things you feel a lot better when the canopy is smaller as well. And that one is by far the more agile one. And all the inputs one does on a small canopy, will work on the big one as well. Just needing the same input, but super-huge to have an effect. But not different in any way (subtle-ties aside) All the tricks learnt on smaller suits work exactly the same on big suits. The input itself just needs to be bigger, and a bit slower. But similar to airplanes, where you also dont pilot a 747 before you learnt to fly, land, stall etc a cessna, smaller suits 100% sure are the better way to learn. If you lack that finer control, for sure you can use a bigger suit to compensate. But thats the same reason why we're now seeing a lot of beginners jumping to big suits vs actually acquiring skills. And doing a lot of stuff they shouldnt be doing skill/experience wise as a result because 'the suit flies easy'. But that can catch anyone out at some point (in skydiving and base). People need to practice more than flying in a straight line. Regardless of suit size. Flying isnt just 'full glide' but its also learning the full flight envelope in terms of agility. To clarrify: When it comes to bending elbows, I dont mean the subtle curve/bend in the default arm position. But moreso, the maneuvres you make to actually steer/control the suit. Use the wings as a solid surface, and only make subtle corrections that steer/maneuver the suit in an effective way with small inputs (vs bending the full wing out of shape, and using huge break/speadup inputs to try and achieve what you want to do). Actually, most top level pilots use the same optimal flying techniques. Aerodynamics are just pure science. Analyzing your flying more with that mindset, and learning which controls are the most effective will teach you a lot more than that 'disco' mindset... And even from the art POV. isnt being as fluid, smooth and beautifull in terms of clean shapes and movements a thing worth striving for. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

First of all, a PG and a skydiving canopy are both ram-air wings, and both operate on the same principals. Due to design differences, they each to different things better than others, but they are fundamentally the same. Maybe I should phrase it differently. The pilot doesn't shift their weight to effect change on the wing, the pilot's weight is shifted, and thus effecting change on the wing. Yes, pulling a toggle will slow one side of the wing, allowing the other side to fly around it. However, as the canopy attempts to turn, the forward inertia of the pilot wants to continue to carry them in a straight line. At this point the pilot swings out to the side of the canopy, and in doing so, pulls down on the canopy at the inside of the turn, creating the bank angle of the turn. Picture a conventional aircraft, and think of the tail empannage. Essentailly, it's a lever used to position the wings and effect changes in direction of flight. Control inputs to the rudder and elevator move the empannage in one direction and in turn, that moves the wing to the desired pitch/bank angle. The pilot under a ram-air wing is the same thing. The lines are the lever, and the pilot swinging around under the wing is the control input to the wing. Yes, you use the toggles or risers to position the pilot, but it's the line tension and the load of the pilot that does the 'work' of positioning the wing. Think of it this way, when you turn on a faucet, you turn the handle and water flows. Turning the handle itself does not actually cause the water to flow from the faucet, that's due to combination of water pressure and gravity, turning the handle is the mechanism that allows that other process to take place. I'm not suggesting that the aerodynamic effects of the the tail deflection don't contribute to the turn, because the do, but until the pilot weight shifts under the wing, no real change is going to occur. Another example - when a jumper flares too high for landing, we tell them not to let the toggle back up too much because the canopy will dive to recover that airspeed. The problem is that if they are too close to the ground and need to flare during the dive, they will not get the same response from the canopy they are used to. When the canopy dives to recover the lost arispeed, the jumper shifts behind the center of the canopy. This allows the nose to drop and the airspeed to build. If the pilot need to flare at that very moment, the response will be delayed because the pilot needs to first swing back from being behind the canopy, return to the center, and then proceed to swing froward of the center to ptich the nose up, and actaully arrest the descent. The pilot can pull the toggle down to full deflection almost immediately, there's no delay to that reaction. The delay comes from the need to wait for the pilot to go from behind the center to ahead of the center, and the reason is that, like I said above (several times), it's the weight of the pilot moving under the wing that effects the majority of the change. In a flare from a 'normal' approach, where the jumper is centered under the canopy, the flare response is far more immediate because the jumper only needs to swing through one 'step' to effect change, that being the 'step' from centered, to forward-of-center. It's the added step of first swinging from rear-of-center that creates the delay and proves my point. (Keep in mind, that I'm not suggesting a jumper will swing from behind the center to the center, and then stop, and then continue on to forward of center. It's one fluid motion, but until the jumper pases the cneter point, the descent will not be arrested and there will be no 'flare' to speak of). This applies to every input you make a to a canopy. Regardless of your brake position on either side, your inputs all serve to reposition the pilot under the wing and that position is what dictates the attitude of the wing. Paragliders derived from parachutes, but nowadays they are totally different, and therefore they require different way of piloting, Paragliders have enormous amout of cells, Hight aspect ratio and complicated internal structure thats why to fly a paraglider you need to be a proper pilot, not a jumper. You never flow a paraglider therefore you have no idea of what you are talking about, I'm an experienced paraglider pilot for 7 years and I'm telling you that pilot weightshifting under a paraglider is not the main tool for turns, the main turns is done with the brakes left or right. Its unbelievable how you insist on this non-sense when you never flown a modern paraglider. Lauren Martins - www.youtube.com/user/gisellemartins20

First of all, a PG and a skydiving canopy are both ram-air wings, and both operate on the same principals. Due to design differences, they each to different things better than others, but they are fundamentally the same. Maybe I should phrase it differently. The pilot doesn't shift their weight to effect change on the wing, the pilot's weight is shifted, and thus effecting change on the wing. Yes, pulling a toggle will slow one side of the wing, allowing the other side to fly around it. However, as the canopy attempts to turn, the forward inertia of the pilot wants to continue to carry them in a straight line. At this point the pilot swings out to the side of the canopy, and in doing so, pulls down on the canopy at the inside of the turn, creating the bank angle of the turn. Picture a conventional aircraft, and think of the tail empannage. Essentailly, it's a lever used to position the wings and effect changes in direction of flight. Control inputs to the rudder and elevator move the empannage in one direction and in turn, that moves the wing to the desired pitch/bank angle. The pilot under a ram-air wing is the same thing. The lines are the lever, and the pilot swinging around under the wing is the control input to the wing. Yes, you use the toggles or risers to position the pilot, but it's the line tension and the load of the pilot that does the 'work' of positioning the wing. Think of it this way, when you turn on a faucet, you turn the handle and water flows. Turning the handle itself does not actually cause the water to flow from the faucet, that's due to combination of water pressure and gravity, turning the handle is the mechanism that allows that other process to take place. I'm not suggesting that the aerodynamic effects of the the tail deflection don't contribute to the turn, because the do, but until the pilot weight shifts under the wing, no real change is going to occur. Another example - when a jumper flares too high for landing, we tell them not to let the toggle back up too much because the canopy will dive to recover that airspeed. The problem is that if they are too close to the ground and need to flare during the dive, they will not get the same response from the canopy they are used to. When the canopy dives to recover the lost arispeed, the jumper shifts behind the center of the canopy. This allows the nose to drop and the airspeed to build. If the pilot need to flare at that very moment, the response will be delayed because the pilot needs to first swing back from being behind the canopy, return to the center, and then proceed to swing froward of the center to ptich the nose up, and actaully arrest the descent. The pilot can pull the toggle down to full deflection almost immediately, there's no delay to that reaction. The delay comes from the need to wait for the pilot to go from behind the center to ahead of the center, and the reason is that, like I said above (several times), it's the weight of the pilot moving under the wing that effects the majority of the change. In a flare from a 'normal' approach, where the jumper is centered under the canopy, the flare response is far more immediate because the jumper only needs to swing through one 'step' to effect change, that being the 'step' from centered, to forward-of-center. It's the added step of first swinging from rear-of-center that creates the delay and proves my point. (Keep in mind, that I'm not suggesting a jumper will swing from behind the center to the center, and then stop, and then continue on to forward of center. It's one fluid motion, but until the jumper pases the cneter point, the descent will not be arrested and there will be no 'flare' to speak of). This applies to every input you make a to a canopy. Regardless of your brake position on either side, your inputs all serve to reposition the pilot under the wing and that position is what dictates the attitude of the wing.

Where do the wild conspiracy theories fit in, in the above classifications? I think the conspiracy theories will be filed under "joking and socializing". Following is a story of my youth, also to be filed under "joking and socializing". Monday levity. My grandpa was the caretaker of Iona Island, in the Hudson, and also at West Point. My uncle was the caretaker of the old mothball fleet of merchant ships just south of Iona Island, across from where the Indian Point nuclear reactors currently are. Not necessary info, except that one of them gave me an old cargo parachute; probably my uncle. It was a big sheet of fabric, with some cut off strings, if I remember. This was in 1960, and I was 8 years old. My guess is that the chute was what you divers would call a conical, and no more than 12-16 feet in diameter. I was fascinated with all things flying (my dad flew off carriers in WWII). I figured I could make myself a parachute (I am an engineer, after all). So, I found a cardboard box, and taped the top such that it was a flap; an inverted trap door. I used rope to make a harness and a ripcord; the ripcord simply opened the trap door. I reconnected the cutoff strings (using good Cub Scout knots, no doubt). I anchored the chute to the bottom of the box with rope, and packed all the fabric into the box. It was simple and elegant, for an eight year old. I wish I had taken a photo with the old Brownie. I am eight years old. I have no clue about fluid mechanics, acceleration due to gravity, and I am obviously lacking in common sense. But I am fearless and reckless. And, I watch too many cartoons. I was going to jump off the barn roof, pull the ripcord and float to earth. I figured the chute will pop right out and open instantly. Thank God I didn't have a ladder to get to the barn roof. So, I climbed one of the big pine trees....yeah, if I jump straight out, I will clear the branches. Another stroke of luck. Needless to say, the actual jump did not go as planned. I hit every branch between the alighting point and the ground, which is by the way covered with blackberry bushes (I used to pick them for my cornflakes). I didn't break anything, as I was very pliable in my youth. I did not fare so well regarding bumps, bruises and briars. I wasn't a no pull, as I deployed as soon as I jumped, but I didn't open the chute. I have never again had a parachute strapped to myself, although I have had the parachute-like safety harnesses we used in the AF to work on the wings and tails of C-5's. But, I am still a WHUFFO. Do I get an honorable mention with the skydiving community for this? So, then, what is the big deal about going off the aft stairs of a 727 at night?

All of above is gospel. I might suggest adding this as a progress guide: Stick with the small suit until you have become so comfy in it that flips, spins etc do not disorient you or catch you by surprise. At some point your recovery gets so fluid and automatic that flat spins or anything like them just don't happen to you because you recover in half a twist. At that point you're ready for big wings. I stuck with a Birdman GTI for my first 500 flights. Learned a lot that way. Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

Right, physics has nothing to do with the real world. Nothing whatever to do with fluid dynamics, semiconductors, GPS systems, power generation, radio, satellites... Nice picture attached of a wingsuit formation flown in close proximity with docks. See how they dealt with those pesky wings that make things so difficult for you. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Kinda... I don't think it is as simple as "reverse". You slipped 'can reverse' in there instead of 'reverse'. The supersonic flow makes a wave that changes the air density so drastically that it can push on different parts of wings and surfaces. I understand trans/supersonic aerodynamics as 'planing' through a fluid, like a boat on a lake. But I'm no aerodynamocologist, just an guy with toys wanting bigger toys.

No trim tabs or speed bars on the GLX, but front risers are a go. However, there are very few instances I use front risers, as the wing is very harness responsive. I would recommend demoing and small (10m^2 or below) high performance speed wing like a fluid 9.5m^2. These wings are significantly cheaper than a GLX.

I looked over your pics. Then I put some thought into the thought processes YOU must be using to produce this stuff and where you think you're going with it. Your approach to this may have some potential. If you dial in your forces beforehand as it looks like you're trying to do the resulting hardware should at least be a lot more refined than mine was by the time you build it. I will tell you what I can if it will help you. Looks like you've got a lot more patience than I did. Every time I built shit I rather brutally forced the object into existence. I knew nothing of sewing. I did that shit with a 50$ portable sewing machine and a bunch of handheld hole punching tools. Broke a million needles before figuring out a crude modular laced construction method that was fast, semi-accurate, and most importantly, indestructible. Build a wingsuit like a buckskin wallet out of 550 spectra line and you could use the suit to tow a truck. Looks like shit, but if you tie off the spectra with a dozen layered surgeons knots using fucking vise grips, guess what: It won't fail. Knots that big DO get fuzzy, though. I think you're on the right track with feeling your way through it with the hardware. I spent far more time refining the armwings than the tail as soon as it became apparent which line of inquiry was going to deliver more results more usably. The big version was a successful use of strut and sail effects. Put simply I had zip-on singleskin wings going from the wrist and trailing edge of a Birdman S-6 all the way to the ankles. The wing ended squared off about 4 inches out, with a line from there to the toe. In practice this worked even more awesomely than I thought it was gonna. Back off on the wings and fly dirty in a flock and the wing just goes limp, folds back out of the way and flutters a little. NO dramatic effects on flyability at ALL. Slightly bumpier due to more loose fabric if you weren't maxed out, but I could still dock cleanly in a flock with it. Max out with the suit and then deliberately pull the little lines taut with your toes, and half the suit turns into a giant angled sail. I flew it once at a major event. Theres a thread around here somewhere. It created a minor buzz when seen in public. I put maybe 70-100 flights on that configuration. Any time I didn't want the wing or complexity, just unzip it, unclip the toecables and the S-6 returned to stock. In time I kept the zipons tucked in a wing pocket as a sort of instant zipon supercharger anytime I wanted a 3.5 minute solo flight. It became basically a daily driver utility option for that suit until the Tony S-bird came out and I won one in a raffle. I eventually cut the wing back to a triangle and deleted the toecables. The thing about the toecables is, fuck up the deployment and you can toss a pilot chute through the loop. The suit was a horseshoe mal waiting to happen. Extremely unlikely, but very, very possible. So flying that hack created a permanent need for extremely careful and deliberate deployment management. To make matters worse that suit had a tendency to make you go head-low during deployment with the wings folded because of all the loose fabric below the waistline which is exactly what you DON'T want if you're trying to keep the pilot chute away from your feet, so it was VERY tricky to fly and always made me nervous. The S and X bird suits were the first suits to hit the market that beat the performance I could get out of that hack. So when I got one, I retired the hack. I still keep it as a backup suit. Heres where I kinda disagree with you about max flight though: If you're doing it right, its actually not that tense, or locked in position, flying the ram-air S-Bird I use as a daily driver. So far, Although it took years of straining in the wrong directions to learn it, the longest flights I've had are ones where I sort of "got the feel" just right and relaxed in a very specific, certain way. I've had flights of 3:15 where I was shaking like a leaf after, because I was trying way too hard and flying it all wrong. End of last season I set a new best of 3:57 while flying with a vicious leg cramp. I was laid out wide and flat and "sprawled out" the way a suit the size of an S lets you do, while mostly focussed on trying to relax that damn cramp or at least keep the cramp managed enough that the leg doesn't lock or fold on me entirely. I was distracted as all hell, thought I'd already blown the time attempt and just spent the whole flight staying as sprawled as I could while trying to relax that one muscle while still keeping my legs out and toes pointed. I wasn't overthinking the "max out the suit" thing. I didn't think I'd beaten my own record until I watched the video after I landed. Because I was distracted I wasn't trying too hard, and I wasn't even all that fatigued out after that flight nor was I shaking or experiencing any extreme muscle fatigue. And this was with an off-the-shelf factory Tony suit. The most effective body position, I didn't feel strained, I was just sort of cruising around easy while trying to manage that cramp. Within the "max-performance envelope" of flying like that, it doesn't FEEL rigid or restricted at all. If I pull in a wing I know I'll start to drop faster but the expectation and relationship are very instinctive and very linear. There are a number of "enhanced performance ninja moves" that are somewhat rigid but they're not the only way to get long glide and slow fall out of a suit. Theres what feels like an infinite variety of variations on body positions that have various effects on "max". Because the suit is totally "fluid", you get exactly as much wingsuit action as you feel like engaging and know how to do, controlled by how far out your arms and legs are, and how good you are at fine tuning a rather "general" working body position. With rigid surfaces, control is binary. It is either snapped into place and flying or it is tearing your arm off. A wingsuit can smoothly transition from maxed out to gradually curled up in a ball and not flying without any major abrupt transitions. I was betting on my understanding of this relationship when I tested the lexan stuff. My worst case scenario: curl into fetal position with armwings spread wide and pull legs in to belly... basically sit on the wing in freefall and dominate it with the armwings. This trick got me out of lesser spins in a single snap roll, is useful for regaining control of flopping rodeo passengers, and I figured if that approach to managing a floppy object attached to me works with something as big and draggy as a passenger it ought to work to keep control of a lesser slablike surface. It did. When it got too hard to handle I could just scrunch up and keep flying it anyway. Point is if you want your concept to work and keep the flight feel you're going to need to make your hard surfaces articulated and flexible enough not to significantly impede the movement of the wearer. Let the wearer decide the shape and just shape the surface so its ideal, at the most comfortable flying position of the suit you wish it to be a part of. This is why the superhard ram air suits work as well as they do. Since they take their own shape they tend to self-optimize but still allow fluid movement. So essentially what you're trying to do is pull off a functioning substitute for the wingsuit ram air effect with hard surfaces. Think scaled armor. Overlapping plates. So that the wingshape just smoothly stops being wingshape and ceases to exist the further back you bring your arm. If you design this right, you won't need to worry about it buckling because if the strain got that high you'd just bring your arm in a little since you couldn't hold it out against that wind anyway. Looks like your initial modeling approach lends itself well to being made in such a way. In fact your "out the car window" tests would be very good for this: Heres my suggestion: Right now your results are very binary. Either it is in a narrow working range or it ragdolls your arm against the side of the car. It will do this in flight. What you need is the same thing that makes a wingsuit so fluidly controllable: Segment it so you can just pull your arm in. In practice the result you're looking for is the ability to not just "turn it off" but modulate it. Only extend it halfway and its halfway effective without restricting your range of motion or ability to extend or retract the arm. In practice, making this shape real, strong, snag resistant and effective will be very difficult but CAN be done. What are you using for materials in your models, and what materials would you plan to make a real one out of? Your model looks like some kind of light .010 maybe .015, .020 plastic? The trouble with modeling that way is you spend a lot of time solving construction and materials problems that only approximate or just don't apply to any attempt at a real working model. I strongly suggest next model is made of thin sheet lexan. My tail was made of heavy .220 lexan which was ridiculous overkill but typical of the way I build brute force physics hacks. The structures you've made, if made of lexan half that thick simply will not buckle. They'd bend into a U shape under tremendous strain but to date I have never succeeded in loading lexan to a permanent crumple failure like what happened to your wing there. If you made your zigzag wing structure of sheet lexan you'd have to jump up and down on it to even stress it. The machine screws you used to tack it together will shear, but the lexan won't permanently deform unless you drive a screw into it and focus tonnage on a single point. You CAN make lexan crack if you use it wrong or rip the screws through the material. You would have to ditch the panhead machine screws you're using and predrill holes about .010-.015 bigger than your fasteners to allow for metal expansion without cracking the lexan, use stainless buttonhead cap screws and locknuts inside. A wing made that way, you could beat it with a 12-lb sledgehammer without seriously damaging it. And its light... Legal Afterword To Cover My Ass: Anything and everything I say here can and may be inaccurate, and almost certainly will. Any attempt to construct and fly any device based on any advice I may offer here is regarded as suicidal, stupid beyond belief, and is extremely likely to result in death or disability. In essence, everything and anything I say about wingsuit design and construction, if you follow it and do it all right, you're still going to fucking die instantly so do not even think about it. Some, most or all of what I say is or may be purely for comic/entertainment purposes with no obvious indicators as to whether there is any fact in any of it. Building actual flight hardware of any kind is done 100% at your own risk. Building and flying anything based on information some idiot put up on the internet would be a phenomenally stupid thing to do, guaranteed to result in your death. Do not do it. Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

Gib... just a suggestion... Maybe you're going about this the wrong way. For most engineering disciplines it IS all about the test data, specifications and so on... With wingsuiting the environment and conditions are so subjective and so fluid that trying to do comparison testing by collecting data when the conditions will never be the same twice strikes me as kind of like trying to build a sculpture out of water. When I was doing my own suit development I didn't bother trying to collect data or establish protocol or attach many numbers to it. The only numbers I was really concerned with was freefall time. When it came to distance and speed, I'd mapped my performance...literally, on a map... and then bought a GPS to verify it. It did. My rough estimates turned out to be a lot more accurate than I thought they would be, actually. The GPS did nothing except tell me what I already knew: Range, 6.5 miles. And when I wanted to assess the performance of my work I did it in a simple nonsubjective manner. I flew it against the best pilots, including Jeff Nebelkopf himself. I didn't smoke him... but the stuff I made did enable me to keep up. My situation is different than yours. I wasn't trying to design a suit to sell... I got better results out of modifying existing suits than anything I made from scratch. So I knew my work had no commercial value from the start and I made no effort to commercialize it. But I certainly did get results, and anyone who saw my stuff in flight knew it. Up until Tony put out the "bird" series of wings, there was nothing in the sky that could stay with my stuff except Jeff in one of his own megasuits. What I'm saying is, instead of trying to sell a suit design based on numbers, protocol and test data, you might be better served and meet with more success with a much simpler approach: Fly the thing, publicly, with the best wingsuit pilots out there. Build a reputation on it. If you can fly the thing against the best of the best and consistently smoke them by a wide margin, THERE is your test data. THERE is your comparison test. Nobody's going to deny you've put a hell of a lot of work into it. Personally I thought the thing looked cool as hell. I wouldn't have thought the plastic and rubber designs (if thats what the materials were) would be very comfortable, but if you say they are I'll believe it, you've worn em, I haven't. All I'm saying is that in the art of wingsuit design, nothing beats demonstrated superior performance. When The new Tony "-bird" designs came out, I KNEW they were vastly superior without having flown them myself. I SAW the results. I didn't need test data and protocol to convince me. Pilots who I had previously been able to smoke without effort suddenly became able to keep up with me. Pilots who had been able to at least compete with me suddenly became able to beat me. One of our local pilots used to fly an S-3. In my S-6 I could outfloat and outrun him by thousands of feet. Then he got an R-Bird and quickly learned to use it. On breakoff one day I punched out, up and away from the flock. Within seconds they were all hundreds of feet below and behind me. Then I looked to the right, and there was Dave. My jaw dropped. He was still with me. I'm both taller and lighter than he is. I was absolutely astonished. That result was repeated by other pilots. I'd been able to dust Justin no matter what he was flying. Even his megasupermach1XS didn't allow him to smoke me. I'm quite a bit lighter and knew my suit too well. But when he and Phil got X-Birds I got smoked by both of them. No contest. Not even close. The only way I could match them was with my own biggest mods, and even then only just barely. That, is what is selling Tony suits. Not protocol or test data... but a demonstrated performance envelope that beats everything else in the sky. Now I fly an S-Bird myself, and am enjoying the same advantages the design granted the others flying it. My homemade stuff is obsolete and I don't see myself trying to build anything better. What they've built is so good I have no urge to improve on it. But if I had a design like yours that I wanted to commercialize, THAT is how I would do it. I'd generate the test data you've been making, but I'd be PROVING my world-class numbers by demonstrating that nobody and nothing can compete with me while I'm flying it. The performance numbers you've claimed for your suit design say your design is so good and so fast it nearly defies physics and would beat any suit ever built or flown. I don't think it unreasonable for the wingsuit community and manufacturers to expect you to prove those claims and those numbers by simple demonstration. You don't need tests and protocol and all this complex comparative stuff. All you need to do is smoke everyone. Then the suit will sell. -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

*** How about this - ever eat a bird? Look at the size of a chicken breast as compared to the size of the thigh. Big difference, and chickens don't even fly anymore. Dave, Giselle is a zoologist specializing in birds, she does not need to eat a modified chicken to appreciate the significance of the large chest muscles in birds, but I am glad you brought this up. it is wrong to eat birds, and it is evil to rob them through cruel breeding programs of their natural ability to fly so that people can consume chunks of flesh that used to be active muscle, and it is also ignorant to believe that we cannot overcome the limits of our strength by using our brains to harness technology. You will remember from biology class that a muscle is comprised of cells that are flacid and elongated when passive, and when pumped with fluid (blood) they contract to provide the power of an active muscle. A company called Festo claimed years ago to have hundreds of designs for membranes that use air ( the fluid enabling flight) to mimic the action and subsequent power of muscle. Thus for human flight, the proximity of a suitable fluid, and the right "muscle" design, leads to the idea that the perhaps we can overcome our limits of strength in more ways than one. (pronounced G - jii is the force that makes you fly!) Jii-Wings - no strings!

Base, that was well summed up. My own perspective on the S3 and 6 suits is likely to be somewhat relaxed because of my experience in one. I found the S6 to be the best general-purpose suit I've ever flown. These days I'm sporting a monstrous S-bird which certainly IS something of a challenge to fly, but my old S6, I could fly in my sleep. Your Noob take on a 3 is fairly accurate. To get the most out of one, get your elbows out, suck your chest in, roll your shoulders and get your head down. Get flat as a plank, lock your knees and point your toes. And relax. A thing I taught students regardless of the suit they were using, is a methodical approach to getting at the handle that works no matter how big the wings are. Bring both arms back and touch your fingertips together behind your back under the bottom of the rig. Bring the fingertips up until you touch the BOC pouch itself. Separate your hands and drag your fingers across the BOC pouch. This WILL put the handle directly into your fingers, scraping any and all wing out of your way as you go. Once this becomes a habit you'll find you're reaching around the wing automatically every time and you get the handle, first grab, every time. When you get fluid enough at it, you don't need to actually press or touch the pouch, just whipping your hands around to the general area is the move you need. A panicky student trying for a straight line shot can wrap their handle in a wing, even with wings as small as a GTI. I've seen it happen. Which is why I started teaching that technique. Students are a lot less likely to get panicky when they are reassured and can demonstrate to themselves to their own satisfaction that with the right technique done smoothly and deliberately, they can ALWAYS get a clean grab on the handle in one try. -B Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

Wait ,.. just a second Bro, I've had many charcoal lighter fluid fires under my beloved Weber charcoal grills' grill . The grilling surface is very thin guaged steel. Should I expect a catastrophic failure next time I cook up some wings? Blues, Cliff My Weber charcoal grill actually has melted through and fallen apart. But I think it's more likely that there was also thermate in there. "I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Wait ,.. just a second Bro, I've had many charcoal lighter fluid fires under my beloved Weber charcoal grills' grill . The grilling surface is very thin guaged steel. Should I expect a catastrophic failure next time I cook up some wings? Blues, Cliff Your grill does not support any load. It's not the lighter fluid that would weaken the steel, it's the charcoal that burns for a time. The fluid burns off almost immediately, but not before setting off the charcoal. Your grill is designed for charcoal and it doesn't bear but a few ounces of meat. It's the same for the jet fuel vs. the officer furniture, paneling, carpets, metals, wires, paper, solvents, plastics. The CT's use the fuel as some sort of red herring when all you need is the damage caused by a large plane and a cigarette lighter and some paper, more time, and a disabled sprinkler system. _____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

Wait ,.. just a second Bro, I've had many charcoal lighter fluid fires under my beloved Weber charcoal grills' grill . The grilling surface is very thin guaged steel. Should I expect a catastrophic failure next time I cook up some wings? Blues, Cliff 2muchTruth

i use the annoying polyonmer thing -- because when your flying in a tunnel or relative to another flyer in the sky -- increasing your surface area of your wings (limbs) creates visual lift . but as we are being pedantic Lift (force) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search In the context of a fluid flow relative to a body, the lift force is the component of the aerodynamic force that is perpendicular to the flow direction. It contrasts with the drag force, which is the parallel component of the aerodynamic force. Lift is commonly associated with the wing of an aircraft, although lift is also generated by rotors on helicopters, sails and keels on sailboats, hydrofoils, wing on auto racing cars, and wind turbines. While common meanings of the word "lift" suggest that lift opposes gravity, aerodynamic lift can be in any direction. When an aircraft is in cruise for example, lift does oppose gravity. However, when the aircraft is climbing, descending, or banking in a turn, for example, the lift is tilted with respect to the vertical. Lift may also be entirely downwards in some aerobatic manoeuvres, or on the wing on a racing car. In this last case, the term downforce is often used. The mathematical equations describing the generation of lift forces have been well established since the Wright Brothers experimentally determined a reasonably precise value for Smeaton's Smeaton coefficient more than 100 years ago, [1] but the practical explanation of what those equations mean is still controversial, with persistent misinformation and pervasive misunderstanding. [2] Contents [hide] 1 Physical description of lift on an airfoil 1.1 Lift in an established flow 1.2 Stages of lift production 2 Methods of determining lift 2.1 Pressure integration 3 Mathematical approximations 3.1 Kutta–Joukowski theorem 3.2 1900 lift equation 4 Alternative Explanations 4.1 Equal transit-time 4.2 Coandă Effect 5 References 5.1 Notes 5.2 See also 5.3 Further reading 6 External links [edit] Physical description of lift on an airfoil Lift is generated in accordance with the fundamental principles of physics such as Newton's laws of motion, Bernoulli's principle, conservation of mass and the balance of momentum (where the latter is the fluid dynamics version of Newton's second law).[3] Each of these principles can be used to explain lift on an airfoil.[4] As a result, there are numerous different explanations with different levels of rigour and complexity. For example, there is an explanation based on Newton’s laws of motion; and an explanation based on Bernoulli’s principle. Neither of these explanations is incorrect, but each appeals to a different audience. [5] To attempt a physical explanation of lift as it applies to an airplane, consider the flow around a 2-D, symmetric airfoil at positive angle of attack in a uniform free stream. Instead of considering the case where an airfoil moves through a flow as seen by a stationary observer, it is equivalent and simpler to consider the picture when the observer follows the airfoil and the flow moves past it. [edit] Lift in an established flow Streamlines around a NACA 0012 airfoil at moderate angle of attack.If one assumes that the flow naturally follows the shape of an airfoil, as is the usual observation, then the explanation of lift is rather simple and can be explained primarily in terms of pressures using Bernoulli's principle (which can be derived from Newton's second law) and conservation of mass, following the development by John D. Anderson in Introduction to Flight. [3] The image to the right shows the streamlines over a NACA 0012 airfoil computed using potential flow theory, a simplified model of the real flow. The flow approaching an airfoil can be divided into two streamtubes, which are defined based on the area between streamlines. By definition, fluid never crosses a streamline; hence mass is conserved within each streamtube. One streamtube travels over the upper surface, while the other travels over the lower surface; dividing these two tubes is a dividing line that intersects the airfoil on the lower surface, typically near to the leading edge. The upper stream tube constricts as it flows up and around the airfoil, the so-called upwash. From the conservation of mass, the flow speed must increase as the area of the stream tube decreases. Relatively speaking, the bottom of the airfoil presents less of an obstruction to the free stream, and often expands as the flow travels around the airfoil, slowing the flow below the airfoil. (Contrary to the equal transit-time explanation of lift, there is no requirement that particles that split as they travel over the airfoil meet at the trailing edge. It is typically the case that the particle traveling over the upper surface will reach the trailing edge long before the one traveling over the bottom.) From Bernoulli's principle, the pressure on the upper surface where the flow is moving faster is lower than the pressure on the lower surface. The pressure difference thus creates a net aerodynamic force, pointing upward and downstream to the flow direction. The component of the force normal to the free stream is considered to be lift; the component parallel to the free stream is drag. In conjunction with this force by the air on the airfoil, by Newton's third law, the airfoil imparts an equal-and-opposite force on the surrounding air that creates the downwash. Measuring the momentum transferred to the downwash is another way to determine the amount of lift on the airfoil. [edit] Stages of lift production In attempting to explain why the flow follows the upper surface of the airfoil, the situation gets considerably more complex. To offer a more complete physical picture of lift, consider the case of an airfoil accelerating from rest in a viscous flow. Lift depends entirely on the nature of viscous flow past certain bodies[6]: in inviscid flow (i.e. assuming that viscous forces are negligible in comparison to inertial forces), there is no lift without imposing a net circulation. When there is no flow, there is no lift and the forces acting on the airfoil are zero. At the instant when the flow is “turned on”, the flow is undeflected downstream of the airfoil and there are two stagnation points on the airfoil (where the flow velocity is zero): one near the leading edge on the bottom surface, and another on the upper surface near the trailing edge. The dividing line between the upper and lower streamtubes mentioned above intersects the body at the stagnation points. Since the flow speed is zero at these points, by Bernoulli's principle the static pressure at these points is at a maximum. As long as the second stagnation point is at its initial location on the upper surface of the wing, the circulation around the airfoil is zero and, in accordance with the Kutta–Joukowski theorem, there is no lift. The net pressure difference between the upper and lower surfaces is zero. The effects of viscosity are contained within a thin layer of fluid called the boundary layer, close to the body. As flow over the airfoil commences, the flow along the lower surface turns at the sharp trailing edge and flows along the upper surface towards the upper stagnation point. The flow in the vicinity of the sharp trailing edge is very fast and the resulting viscous forces cause the boundary layer to accumulate into a vortex on the upper side of the airfoil between the trailing edge and the upper stagnation point.[7] This is called the starting vortex. The starting vortex and the bound vortex around the surface of the wing are two halves of a closed loop. As the starting vortex increases in strength the bound vortex also strengthens, causing the flow over the upper surface of the airfoil to accelerate and drive the upper stagnation point towards the sharp trailing edge. As this happens, the starting vortex is shed into the wake, [8] and is a necessary condition to produce lift on an airfoil. If the flow were stopped, there would be a corresponding "stopping vortex".[9] Despite being an idealization of the real world, the “vortex system” set up around a wing is both real and observable; the trailing vortex sheet most noticeably rolls up into wing-tip vortices. The upper stagnation point continues moving downstream until it is coincident with the sharp trailing edge (a feature of the flow known as the Kutta condition). The flow downstream of the airfoil is deflected downward from the free-stream direction and, from the reasoning above in the basic explanation, there is now a net pressure difference between the upper and lower surfaces and an aerodynamic force is generated. [edit] Methods of determining lift [edit] Pressure integration The force on the wing can be examined in terms of the pressure differences above and below the wing, which can be related to velocity changes by Bernoulli's principle. The total lift force is the integral of vertical pressure forces over the entire wetted surface area of the wing: where: L is the lift, A is the wing surface area p is the value of the pressure, n is the normal unit vector pointing into the wing, and k is the vertical unit vector, normal to the freestream direction. The above lift equation neglects the skin friction forces, which typically have a negligible contribution to the lift compared to the pressure forces. By using the streamwise vector i parallel to the freestream in place of k in the integral, we obtain an expression for the pressure drag Dp (which includes induced drag in a 3D wing). If we use the spanwise vector j, we obtain the side force Y. One method for calculating the pressure is Bernoulli's equation, which is the mathematical expression of Bernoulli's principle. This method ignores the effects of viscosity, which can be important in the boundary layer and to predict friction drag, which is the other component of the total drag in addition to Dp. The Bernoulli principle states that the sum total of energy within a parcel of fluid remains constant as long as no energy is added or removed. It is a statement of the principle of the conservation of energy applied to flowing fluids. A substantial simplification of this proposes that as other forms of energy changes are inconsequential during the flow of air around a wing and that energy transfer in/out of the air is not significant, then the sum of pressure energy and speed energy for any particular parcel of air must be constant. Consequently, an increase in speed must be accompanied by a decrease in pressure and vice-versa. It should be noted that this is not a causational relationship. Rather, it is a coincidental relationship, whatever causes one must also cause the other as energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It is named for the Dutch-Swiss mathematician and scientist Daniel Bernoulli, though it was previously understood by Leonhard Euler and others. Bernoulli's principle provides an explanation of pressure difference in the absence of air density and temperature variation (a common approximation for low-speed aircraft). If the air density and temperature are the same above and below a wing, a naive application of the ideal gas law requires that the pressure also be the same. Bernoulli's principle, by including air velocity, explains this pressure difference. The principle does not, however, specify the air velocity. This must come from another source, e.g., experimental data. Erroneous assumptions concerning velocity, e.g., that two parcels of air separated at the front of the wing must meet up again at the back of the wing, are commonly found.[10] In order to solve for the velocity of inviscid flow around a wing, the Kutta condition must be applied to simulate the effects of inertia and viscosity. The Kutta condition allows for the correct choice among an infinite number of flow solutions that otherwise obey the laws of conservation of mass and conservation of momentum. [edit] Mathematical approximations [edit] Kutta–Joukowski theorem Main article: Kutta–Joukowski theorem Lift can be calculated using potential flow theory by imposing a circulation. It is often used by practicing aerodynamicists as a convenient quantity in calculations, for example thin-airfoil theory and lifting-line theory. The circulation Γ is the line integral of the velocity of the air, in a closed loop around the boundary of an airfoil. It can be understood as the total amount of "spinning" (or vorticity) of air around the airfoil. The section lift/span L' can be calculated using the Kutta–Joukowski theorem: L' = − ρVΓ where ρ is the air density, V is the free-stream airspeed. The Helmholtz theorem states that circulation is conserved; put simply this is conservation of the air's angular momentum. When an aircraft is at rest, there is no circulation. The challenge when using the Kutta–Joukowski theorem to determine lift is to determine the appropriate circulation for a particular airfoil. In practice, this is done by applying the Kutta condition, which uniquely prescribes the circulation for a given geometry and free-stream velocity. A physical understanding of the theorem can be observed in the Magnus effect, which is a lift force generated by a spinning cylinder in a free stream. Here the necessary circulation is induced by the mechanical rotation acting on the boundary layer, causing it to separate at different points between top and bottom. The asymmetric separation then produces a circulation in the outer inviscid flow. [edit] 1900 lift equation The lift equation used by the Wright brothers was due to John Smeaton. It has the form:[11] where: L is the lift k is the Smeaton coefficient- 0.005 (the drag of a 1 square foot plate at 1 mph) Cl is the lift coefficient (the lift relative to the drag of a plate of the same area) A is the area in square feet The Wright brothers determined with wind tunnels that the Smeaton coefficient was incorrect and should have been 0.0033.[12] [edit] Alternative Explanations [edit] Equal transit-time An illustration of the equal transit-time fallacy.One misconception encountered in a number of popular explanations of lift is the "equal transit time" fallacy. This fallacy assumes that the parcels of air that are divided above and below an airfoil must rejoin behind it. The fallacy states that because of the longer path of the upper surface of an airfoil, the air going over the top must go faster in order to "catch up" with the air flowing around the bottom.[13] Although it is true that the air moving over the top of a wing generating lift does move faster, there is no requirement for equal transit time. In fact the air moving over the top of an airfoil generating lift is always moving much faster than the equal transit theory would imply. [14] A further flaw in this explanation is that it requires an airfoil to have thickness and curvature in order to create lift. In fact, thin flat plate wings and sails create lift under a range of angles of attack. If lift were solely a result of shape, then it would not be possible to fly inverted. This explanation has gained currency by repetition in populist (rather than technical) books. At least one common pilot training book depicts the equal transit fallacy, adding to the confusion.[15] Further information: List of works with the equal transit-time fallacy [edit] Coandă Effect Main article: Coandă effect In a limited sense, the Coandă effect refers to the tendency of a fluid jet to stay attached to an adjacent surface that curves away from the flow and the resultant entrainment of ambient air into the flow. The effect is named for Henri Coandă, the Romanian aerodynamicist who exploited it in many of his patents. One first known uses is in his patent for a high-lift device [16] that uses a fan of gas exiting at high pressure from an internal compressor. This circular spray is directed radially over the top of a curved surface, shaped like a lens, to decrease the pressure on that surface. The total lift for the device is caused by the difference between this pressure and that on the bottom of the craft. Two Russian aircraft, the Antonov AN-72 and AN-74 "Coaler", use the exhaust from top-mounted jet engines flowing over the wing to enhance lift,[17] as do the prototype Boeing YC-14 and the McDonnell Douglas YC-15.[18] [19] The effect is also used in high-lift devices such as a blown flap.[20] More broadly, some consider the effect to include the tendency of any fluid boundary layer to adhere to a curved surface, not just that involving a jet. It is in this broader sense that the Coandă effect is used by some to explain lift.[21] Jef Raskin[22], for example, describes a simple demonstration, using a straw to blow over the upper surface of a wing. The wing deflects upwards, thus supposedly demonstrating that the Coanda effect creates lift. This demonstration correctly demonstrates the Coandă effect as a fluid jet (the exhaust from a straw) adhering to a curved surface (the wing). However, the upper surface in this flow is a complicated, vortex-laden mixing layer, while on the the lower surface the flow is quiescent. The physics of this demonstration are very different from that off the general flow over the wing.[23] The usage in this sense is largely seen in popular references on aerodynamics.[21][22] Those in the aerodynamics field generally consider the Coanda effect in the more limited sense above[23][24][25] and use viscosity to explain why the boundary layer attaches to the surface of a wing.[9] [edit] References [edit] Notes ^ Crouch, Tom D. (1989). The Bishop's Boys : A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright. W. W. Norton, pp. 220-226. ISBN 0-393-02660-4. ^ aerodave (2005-07-12). "How do airplanes fly, really? : A Staff Report by the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board". Chicago Reader, Inc.. Retrieved on 2007-02-18. ^ a b Anderson, John D. (2004), Introduction to Flight (5th ed.), McGraw-Hill, p. 355 ^ NASA Glenn Research Center, Bernoulli and Newton, . Retrieved on 19 April 2008 ^ Ison, David, "Bernoulli Or Newton: Who's Right About Lift?", Plane & Pilot, . Retrieved on 21 April 2008 ^ Karamacheti, Krishnamurty (1980), Principles of Ideal-Fluid Aerodynamics (Reprint ed.) ^ Clancy, L.J., Aerodynamics, Figure 4.7 ^ Clancy, L.J., Aerodynamics, Figure 4.8 ^ a b White, Frank M. (2002), "Fluid Mechanics" (5th ed.), McGraw Hill ^ Aerodynamic Forces ^ Lift equation of the early 1900s ^ Failure Magazine-Wright Brothers ^ Anderson, David (2001). Understanding Flight. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0071363777. "The first thing that is wrong is that the principle of equal transit times is not true for a wing with lift." ^ Glenn Research Center (2006-03-15). "Incorrect Lift Theory". NASA. Retrieved on 2008-03-27. ^ Kershner, William K. (1979). The Student Pilot's Flight Manual, 5th ed.. ISBN 0-8138-1610-6. ^ USP No. 2108652 ^ Antonov, Oleg Konstantinovich (24-May), ^ Neely, Mike (2008), . Retrieved on 21 July 2008 ^ Pike, John (2008), . Retrieved on 23 July 2008 ^ Englar, Robert J. (June 2005), "Overview of Circulation Control Pneumatic Aerodynamics: Blown Force and Moment Augmentation and Modification as Applied Primarily to Fixed-Wing Aircraft", Proceedings of the 2004 NASA/ONR Circulation Control Workshop, Part 1, NASA/ONR, pp. 37-99 ^ a b Anderson, David & Eberhart, Scott (1999), How Airplanes Fly: A Physical Description of Lift, . Retrieved on 4 June 2008 ^ a b Raskin, Jef (1994), Coanda Effect: Understanding Why Wings Work, ^ a b Auerbach, David (2000), "Why Aircraft Fly", Eur. J. Phys. 21: 289–296 ^ Denker, JS, Fallacious Model of Lift Production, . Retrieved on 18 August 2008 ^ Wille, R & Fernholz, H (1965), "Report on the first European Mechanics Colloquium, on the Coanda effect", J. Fluid Mech. 23: 801–819, doi:10.1017/S0022112065001702, [edit] See also Aerodynamic force Angle of bank Drag force Lift-induced drag Lift-to-drag ratio Circulation control wing Kutta condition Kutta–Joukowski theorem Drag Downforce Lifting-line theory [edit] Further reading Introduction to Flight, John D. Anderson, Jr., McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-299071-6. The author is the Curator of Aerodynamics at the National Air & Space Museum Smithsonian Institute and Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland. Understanding Flight, by David Anderson and Scott Eberhardt, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-136377-7. The authors are a physicist and an aeronautical engineer. They explain flight in non-technical terms and specifically address the equal-transit-time myth. Turning of the flow around the wing is attributed to the Coanda effect, which is quite controversial. Aerodynamics, Clancy, L.J. (1975), Section 4.8, Pitman Publishing Limited, London ISBN 0 273 01120 0 Quest for an improved explanation of lift Jaako Hoffren (Helsinki Univ. of Technology, Espoo, Finland) AIAA-2001-872 Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 39th, Reno, NV, Jan. 8-11, 2001 This paper focuses on a physics-based explanation of lift. Calculation of lift based on circulation with artificially imposed Kutta condition is interpreted as a mathematical model, having limited "real-world" physics, resulting from the assumption of potential flow. Also the role of viscosity is discussed. Author's claim is that viscosity is not important for lift generation. Aerodynamics, Aeronautics, and Flight Mechanics, McCormick, Barnes W., (1979), Chapter 3, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York ISBN 0-471-03032-5 Fundamentals of Flight, Richard S. Shevell, Prentice-Hall International Editions, ISBN 0-13-332917-8. This book is primarily intended as a text for a one semester undergraduate course in mechanical or aeronautical engineering, although its sections on theory of flight are understandable with a passing knowledge of calculus and physics. [edit] External links Discussion of the apparent "conflict" between the various explanations of lift NASA tutorial, with animation, describing lift Explanation of Lift with animation of fluid flow around an airfoil A treatment of why and how wings generate lift that focuses on pressure. Physics of Flight - reviewed. Online paper by Prof. Dr. Klaus Weltner. Explanation of Lift with animation of flow around an airfoil. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)" hahah

Thank you Scotty,...that means alot coming from you.....and I appreciate all your tips on my flying during the past few months. Guys and Gals, I have not spent any time on this forum in the past other than to check events and who is coming. I'm also only a two finger typer, a 1000 and beyond total jumper who began in 66 but stopped logging jumps after I became a jumpmaster for Jacque Istel's Parachutes Incorporated( Lakewood/Orange, Ma.) in 1973 or so ( C-8909,..never bothered to get my D),.. and a 240 or so wingsuit flight jumper who was lucky enough to have Jeff Nebelkopf as my instuctor and paid coach ( he is "the man" for me on flying the Tony suits ) However,..I received help from every one I have met since Z flock 3.5 , each listening to my ideas and problems and each offering their insights and assistence to me. The most recent learning experience came from jumping and then staying as a roomate and hiking buddy with a Frenchman named Stephann (Zun) in Puerto Rico after flying behind him in our flocks there. AS for landing a wingsuit after intentionally departing a flying aircraft/helicopter and then landing it with no chute used and no landing devices or wheels/skids etc,..and on doing it onto totally unprepared hard solid and "level" grass covered ground;.... I wanted to be the first at something in my life,...I wanted to live through it,... to highlight our Z flockers event , and to give some idea of what is now possible...... I "did" what I did,...nothing less and nothing more. Others ( not me again) will do amazing things that are much more dramatic and well thought out( I hope) and do it when the technology and the person COMBINED ARE "right" to do so and to have at least a 85% chance to BE SUCCESSFUL... Anything less will just perpetuate or even degrade the our current image with the public as something done by mostly nuts with a death wish.... Scotty Burns was going to do my video and stills but his camera lost power, so I have given my permission to the Gray brothers (who jump at my old DZ home in Orange Va) to edit the video, add slow-motion,... add music, and add arrows pointing to the most critical moments. I will not rush them to do this properly and I hope all the other spectators who may have captured video or stills "honor" my then verbal request that they wait to show them or post them until the Gray Bortheres have posted theirs exclusively on Dropzone .com.... ( This is ABOUT and for about "us" ,...as jumpers,...and not about geting cash from millions of wuffos on U tube! ( but that's not a bad idea Chris and Scott---if you want to do it ....but if you do , I hope you will decide to remember to share the proceeds with the man in pain or put them toward Orange's hanger fund or toward some kid's charity. After you bear witness to what I did ,..if anyone of you are willing to risk a smashed face, a maybe broken but definitely now crooked and dried-blood filled nose,...the two days or more of chest/belly/back aches and (for some reason) the slight pain behind my ear and around my brain stem,...well then, please be my guest and go "do" what I did, to show all your friends how easy it is! Or better yet,...do the deed from even higher and higher and see how things turn out for "you" Now,... let me dispel the fall-out theories,...I did not fall out,..and I was not pushed. I departed the skid as directly out into the then relative wind as I could do,... being careful to not "push off" and cause the chopper control problems,... Nigel, our helicopter pilot and David , our crewchief ,...had both warned and briefed me prior to our liftoff on that potential danger to the craft as well as to the spectators on the ground around the landing area if the helicopter lost control and crashed. Yes,..I was indeed somewhat close to the ground ( but above the one meter suggested in one of the forum replies) Nigel requested at least 12 ft. above the ground to give him the ability to avoid catching a rotor tip.... When I departed the skid I was hoping to be using the helicopter's reverse rotor wash deflection from the ground as well as the "gound effect" ( atmospheric compression under my body near the surface) to establish a cushion to the extent available. I did not get my arms out as far as I would have liked and had envisoned before contacting the ground so I lost much of the benefit these two aerodynamic properties could have offered me. A more powerful tubine engined helicopter could have allowed me to "push off" better and directly away from the skid without endangering the helicopter or people on the ground and allowed me to further benefit from the aforementioned aerodynamic effects , but this "was", as someone has already suggested, a somewhat "spur of the moment " decision for me because we had low scruddy clouds...( BUT actually with dry cold air at ground level which further assisted my lift and with what "my instruments" detected as negative ionization in and around the landing field and right at the max high tide slack time adjusted for the distance inland to Z hills from each coast.) Alignment was perpendicular to the Northern Magnetic flux lines of the earth for reasons that will become apparent when Jeff actually does a full altitude to earth landing in a modified Tony suit that I hope will incorporate several of my ideas from my years of jumping and my 25 years experience participating in the design and sales of Citation, Israel Aircraft Company, Beechcraft, Gulfstream IV and Hawker 800/800XP Jet Hawker. ( as well as what I saw and liked done in aerodynamic design by Sabreliner, and by my strongest competition at Dassualt and at Bombardier. Remember NEW is not necessarily BETTER!... ( as I proved to my son using a Flexible Flyer sled vs his Rocket/composite sled on the hills up north after a snowstorm) We did "not" clear the landing area of rocks and indeed I have numerous mirror image bruises from where I believe those rocks likely were when I touched down...I did jump a Tony suit,..but the super mach 1 that I jump has a special wing design that I requested based on what I learned from working 7 years with Cessna Citation, and being the sales liason to the President's Advisory Board there interacting with the Citation's senior designers and manufacturing Senior management. (It's all about fluid dynamics,...lift, mass, gravity, power and drag as well as combining those optimally in the SIMPLEST POSSIBLE WAY. I spent a full day last October watching and filming the giant Condors in the Colca Canyon of Peru....and how they use their wings and body to ride the thermals and swoop down to land on small rocky cliffs---( magnificent 9 to 12 ft wingspans) With more planning, and with other resources,....I "could have" eliminated many factors that limited and then caused me harm in this jump,.. but I was not thinking in a fully logical manner when I made the decision to "go for it". (-- and there was no random or compulsary drug or Alcohol testing after the deed, which might have explained to me why the hell I did this?!)...( yes, I was beyond 8 hours and at 12 or 13 from my last Corona) Let's just say I am a somewhat spontaneous person who depends on guidance and thanfulness in advance to see me through tough or dangerous situations.( but not without having "some" thoughts and "dreams' ( "visions"?)and research, study and sort-of preparing before-hand ... as to what I might do)---I just never KNOW exactly "when".BUT I always keep my promises to myself, and this was one of those things I had promised myself to try( to see how it felt and/or to move onto and into my next grand adventure on the other side). Hell,...why do we jump? I have already offered some ideas to Jeff in the past that I see he has included in his wingsuit designs along with ideas from others and from HIS VISIONS and results of his almost constant test flight mentality. I also want to support Jeff with some of the aerodynamic modification ideas I now have that could bring the day of "typical advanced wingsuiters" landing without a main chute and or possibly with just a small safety chute or a droque chute or two deployed prior to or after touchtown to slow the speed and provide stability....AS USUAL, KISS is the best way to look at whatever man wants to do in nature. Gotta go, want to find Jeff and start talking to him about my ideas...... Regards to all, "Stoney" Life is what happens while we are making other plans.

heya marco, ill pull the maths up for you to have a look at later lets hit the parachute term- parachutes are known as aerodynamic deaccelorators. they in themselves do not create lift but can change their angles of attack, and go slower or faster by changing the drag profile the same goes for wingsuits in terms of lift- are you going upwards? no you are not... you are merelely changing the drag profile more or less. its not the same as a wing being accelerated to move upwards those arent the facts...have a look at the following equations.... Lift is the sum of all the fluid dynamic forces on a body perpendicular to the direction of the external flow approaching that body. The mathematical equations describing lift have been well established since the Wright Brothers experimentally determined a reasonably precise value for the "Smeaton coefficient" more than 100 years ago,[2] but the practical explanation of what those equations mean is still controversial, with persistent misinformation and pervasive misunderstanding.[3] Sometimes the term dynamic lift or dynamic lifting force is used for the perpendicular force resulting from motion of the body in the fluid, as in an aerodyne, in contrast to the static lifting force resulting from buoyancy, as in an aerostat. Lift is commonly associated with the wing of an aircraft. However there are many other examples of lift such as propellers on both aircraft and boats, rotors on helicopters, sails and keels on sailboats, hydrofoils, wings on auto racing cars, and wind turbines. While the common meaning of the term "lift" suggests an upward action, the lift force is not necessarily directed up with respect to gravity. Lift is generated when an object turns a fluid away from its direction of flow. When the object and fluid move relative to each other and the object turns the fluid flow in a direction perpendicular to that flow, the force required to do this creates an equal and opposite force that is lift. The object may be moving through a stationary fluid, or the fluid may be flowing past a stationary object— these two are effectively identical as, in principle, it is only the frame of reference of the viewer which differs. The lift generated by an airfoil depends on such factors as the speed of the airflow, the density of the air, the total area of the airfoil, and the angle of attack. The angle of attack is the angle at which the airfoil meets the oncoming airflow (or vice versa). A symmetric airfoil must have a positive angle of attack to generate positive lift. At a zero angle of attack, no lift is generated. At a negative angle of attack, negative lift is generated. A cambered airfoil may produce positive lift at zero, or even small negative angles of attack. The basic concept of lift is simple. However, the details of how the relative movement of air and airfoil interact to produce the turning action that generates lift are complex. Below are several explanations of lift, all of which are different but equivalent descriptions of the same phenomenon from different viewpoints. A fixed-wing aircraft's wings, horizontal, and vertical stabilizers are built with airfoil-shaped cross sections, as are helicopter rotor blades. Airfoils are also found in propellers, fans, compressors and turbines. Sails are also airfoils, and the underwater surfaces of sailboats, such as the centerboard and keel, are similar in cross-section and operate on the same principles as airfoils. Swimming and flying creatures and even many plants and sessile organisms employ airfoils; common examples being bird wings, the bodies of fishes, and the shape of sand dollars. An airfoil-shaped wing can create downforce on an automobile or other motor vehicle, improving traction. Aifoils- An airfoil is a device which gets a useful reaction from air moving over its surface. When an airfoil is moved through the air, it is capable of producing lift. Wings, horizontal tail surfaces, vertical tails surfaces, and propellers are all examples of airfoils. The human body is not an airfoil shape guys, no matter how much you want it to be While any object with an angle of attack in a moving fluid, such as a flat plate, a building, or the deck of a bridge, will generate an aerodynamic force perpendicular to the flow called lift, airfoils are more efficient lifting shapes, able to generate more lift (up to a point), and to generate lift with less drag.

10am update hes now keeping down fluid if he can keep food down tonight maybe he can come home :-) on the up :-) ``````````````````````````````````` " Cant keep a good woman down " Angels have wings, but devils can fly !

To make a long story short, you don't need an A&P ticket unless you're taking apart anything considered a complex assembly, flight control, major structural components, etc. Aircraft owners and pilots can legally change their own oil, clean sparkplugs, replace hoses and filters as long as they've been educated in the manufacturer's approved procedures. A&Ps end up doing most of that stuff simply because pilots are afraid of dirty hands, and even more afraid of breaking something they can't fix. From FAR 43 appendix A: (c) Preventive maintenance. Preventive maintenance is limited to the following work, provided it does not involve complex assembly operations: (1) Removal, installation, and repair of landing gear tires. (2) Replacing elastic shock absorber cords on landing gear. (3) Servicing landing gear shock struts by adding oil, air, or both. (4) Servicing landing gear wheel bearings, such as cleaning and greasing. (5) Replacing defective safety wiring or cotter keys. (6) Lubrication not requiring disassembly other than removal of nonstructural items such as cover plates, cowlings, and fairings. (7) Making simple fabric patches not requiring rib stitching or the removal of structural parts or control surfaces. In the case of balloons, the making of small fabric repairs to envelopes (as defined in, and in accordance with, the balloon manufacturers' instructions) not requiring load tape repair or replacement. (8) Replenishing hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic reservoir. (9) Refinishing decorative coating of fuselage, balloon baskets, wings tail group surfaces (excluding balanced control surfaces), fairings, cowlings, landing gear, cabin, or cockpit interior when removal or disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is not required. (10) Applying preservative or protective material to components where no disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is involved and where such coating is not prohibited or is not contrary to good practices. (11) Repairing upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit, or balloon basket interior when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary structure or operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the primary structure of the aircraft. (12) Making small simple repairs to fairings, nonstructural cover plates, cowlings, and small patches and reinforcements not changing the contour so as to interfere with proper air flow. (13) Replacing side windows where that work does not interfere with the structure or any operating system such as controls, electrical equipment, etc. (14) Replacing safety belts. (15) Replacing seats or seat parts with replacement parts approved for the aircraft, not involving disassembly of any primary structure or operating system. (16) Trouble shooting and repairing broken circuits in landing light wiring circuits. (17) Replacing bulbs, reflectors, and lenses of position and landing lights. (18) Replacing wheels and skis where no weight and balance computation is involved. (19) Replacing any cowling not requiring removal of the propeller or disconnection of flight controls. (20) Replacing or cleaning spark plugs and setting of spark plug gap clearance. (21) Replacing any hose connection except hydraulic connections. (22) Replacing prefabricated fuel lines. (23) Cleaning or replacing fuel and oil strainers or filter elements. (24) Replacing and servicing batteries. (25) Cleaning of balloon burner pilot and main nozzles in accordance with the balloon manufacturer's instructions. (26) Replacement or adjustment of nonstructural standard fasteners incidental to operations. (27) The interchange of balloon baskets and burners on envelopes when the basket or burner is designated as interchangeable in the balloon type certificate data and the baskets and burners are specifically designed for quick removal and installation. (28) The installations of anti-misfueling devices to reduce the diameter of fuel tank filler openings provided the specific device has been made a part of the aircraft type certificate data by the aircraft manufacturer, the aircraft manufacturer has provided FAA-approved instructions for installation of the specific device, and installation does not involve the disassembly of the existing tank filler opening. (29) Removing, checking, and replacing magnetic chip detectors. (30) The inspection and maintenance tasks prescribed and specifically identified as preventive maintenance in a primary category aircraft type certificate or supplemental type certificate holder's approved special inspection and preventive maintenance program when accomplished on a primary category aircraft provided: (i) They are performed by the holder of at least a private pilot certificate issued under part 61 who is the registered owner (including co-owners) of the affected aircraft and who holds a certificate of competency for the affected aircraft (1) issued by a school approved under Sec. 147.21(e) of this chapter; (2) issued by the holder of the production certificate for that primary category aircraft that has a special training program approved under Sec. 21.24 of this subchapter; or (3) issued by another entity that has a course approved by the Administrator; and (ii) The inspections and maintenance tasks are performed in accordance with instructions contained by the special inspection and preventive maintenance program approved as part of the aircraft's type design or supplemental type design. Matt

I agree 100% with Robi that talking about laminar flow in the wing suit contest is borderline meaningless. Having seen Robi kind of opened a “Pandora’s box” let us talk about other common misconceptions about wing suit design. First let me say it is normal but erroneous to look at many airplane wing designs and try or think about implementing them in a wing suit. As much as we think we can fly like an airplane we are not airplanes: We do not have an engine and a rigid frame. However there are hints that we can draw from basic understanding of airplane fluid dynamics. For instance if we analyze the sweep angle of a wing it is my opinion that only one right conclusion can be drown: A high sweep angle is not efficient in a wing suit. Of course Robi and Jari will disagree on this one because on many of their suits the arm wings have quite a bit of swept-back. Swept-back wings were designed to address the issues related to supersonic flights. For the record few test pilots have died because engineers overlooked this problem even though the phenomenon was known before technology allowed for supersonic flights. When approaching the speed of sound (770 mph), something peculiar happens: A sharp drop in pressure is generated aft of the nose of the aircraft. If this drop in pressure happenes in high humidity, a cloud is formed around the aircraft leading the very cool images of airplanes passing the speed of sound. This is known as the Mach cone. Why this happens is actually pretty simple. Any moving object generates sound waves that in general travel aft of the object at subsonic speeds. As the speed approaches the one of sound, those waves “collapse” into one, usually at the nose of the aircraft, and this sudden raise in pressure is also responsible for the “sonic boom”. Actually there is a second boom when the tail passes the shock wave but human hearing is not sensitive enough to detect the two and only one is heard. As the nose is “loaded” with high pressure, aft parts of the aircraft including he wings have much lower pressure. This higher pressure intuitively increases the temperature. Both the increase in pressure and temperature on the nose of the aircraft have detrimental effects on the wings namely an increase in drag that if compromises the whole leading edge it could result in total loss of lift. Implementing a sweep angle on the wings allows for a reduction of this type of drag. I said a sweep angle and not just swept-back because a swept-forward will also work as in the case of the X-29 for instance. However a swept-forward design introduces some disadvantages like wing-tip twist, wing-tip-first stalls (which rob aileron efficiency more than any other stalls), not to talk about higher cost of manufacturing. The reason behind the sweep angle is to reduce the effect of compressibility responsible for the cone to approach the leading edge. So in theory the higher the sweep angle the higher the speed the code reaches the leading edge inducing a drastic reduction of drag, up to a point. So why don’t all aircrafts have swept-back wings? In short because at lower speeds, the disadvantages are greater than the advantages namely less lift produced, more drag, “Sabre dance” (the pitch up close to the stall point), among others. There is also IMO another disadvantage in having swept-back wings on a wing suit and this is the lower aspect ratio. Same goes for narrow leg stance, the aspect ratio is lower and all things being equal a wing with higher aspect ratio will produce more lift and less drag. I also disagree with Robi with his analogy to the Space Shuttle. This “aircraft” is not an airplane per se and introducing such a design as a “normal” aircraft will get the person fired! The Space Shuttle is a compromise aircraft: it has to take off vertically strapped to some giant rockets, it has to orbit the earth, it has to re-enter the earth atmosphere reaching temperature that melt most metals, then it has to overcome Mach numbers over 20, and finally manage to land…and those things do not land pretty, they come in hot, having little flare power and nowadays NASA pilots do not even land them anymore leaving computers the job. If we really want to “rob” ideas from aircraft wing aerodynamics in order to implement or evaluate them in a wing suit contest, then we should look at aircrafts such as gliders where in general high-aspect ratio straight wings are preferred. I do agree with Robi when he says gravity is our only engine, there is very little doubt about that! *********************************** EG Suits ***********************************

IMO, best feature is the one that causes most of the 'turning' of the fluid flow, so I went with shape. "birds can climb without flapping their wings, but we're not quite there yet" from SoulFlyers 2. "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

So, you are providing a 'bit more lift' but its still falling. Lift: The lift force, lifting force or simply lift consists of the sum of all the fluid dynamic forces on a body perpendicular to the direction of the external flow approaching that body. Unless you can fly back up to 14,000 feet, I don't think those are wings, or somewhere there of, I don't think they are wings.