quade 4 #51 April 22, 2002 QuoteProbably the ideal landing area would be a flat lake with enough wind to both slow down the landing and cause ripples on the surface.Also, the current suits aren't going to work because they'll inflate with water as soon as you touch down. I'm not talking about drowning, I'm talking about having your arms ripped off.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyhawk 2 #52 April 23, 2002 i reakon it will be done i am going to try and do it but i doubt very muchg by the time i get the experience it wont have been done.i reakon it will just be the "crazy" step after base jumping with prob a couple hundred people doing at a time worldwide, it wont go mainstream because of the obvious and thus wont replace parachutes but i do think it will become another skydiving disicplineOpinions are like a-holes everyone has one, the only one that does you any good is yours and all that comes out is shit Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #53 April 23, 2002 I'm wondering who is going to be crazy enough to get to 1000' and then have the balls to not deploy anything. I suspect there will be a few fatalities trying to land one until finally giving up. has anyone considered what the publicity of a fatality under a wingsuit will have on the sport?Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #54 April 23, 2002 There have been lots of fatilities due to wing suits though out the years.... look at Patrick, and the Gypsy Moths, one just last year in KS too...If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 7 #55 April 23, 2002 Quotehas anyone considered what the publicity of a fatality under a wingsuit will have on the sport?Won't be any different than what we have now:"... tried a 'high-performace experimental landing'....""... the jumper's suit failed to function properly...""... plunged...""... failed to land correctly..."... I forget how the rest of it goes, but you're mother's a whore!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GroundZero 0 #56 April 23, 2002 yea...I'll put money on that. Chris(6 years would be ...... April 23, 2008)MARK YOUR CALENDARS! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #57 April 23, 2002 Ok, what do you want to bet?Let's make it something really good, because I think we're going to have to donate some to widows and orphans.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USPA 0 #58 April 23, 2002 Didn't anyone notice, that it doesn't say anything about a "safe" landing? Simply landing! I'll bet this happen this year... :) / :( Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #59 April 23, 2002 >I'm wondering who is going to be crazy enough to get to 1000' and then have the> balls to not deploy anything. There are some of us who get to 200 feet and don't deploy anything . . . . (of course, we start from 250) Who you callin crazy?-bill von Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #60 April 23, 2002 QuoteDidn't anyone notice, that it doesn't say anything about a "safe" landing?Oh no. We've clearly been talking about a landing you can walk away from.Chris Martin is the only person, so far, that has wanted to actually put up some cash on the agreed to date.It has to happen within six years and the person that does it has to be able to walk away from it.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #61 April 23, 2002 I'd LOVE to see Jari's opinion on this topic. I think its going to take at least 3 more generation of the wing suit development before it reaches a proformace level that will allow something like this to be done with any degree of safety.If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #62 April 23, 2002 I -think- his opinion is clearly stated on his web site. He says you shouldn't try it.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #63 April 23, 2002 Won't be any different than what we have now:"... tried a 'high-performace experimental landing'....""... the jumper's suit failed to function properly...""... plunged..."------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'd say "Intentionally failed to deploy a parachute" will have a much more negative effect. Especially after it happens 4 or 5 times.Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 7 #64 April 23, 2002 QuoteI'd say "Intentionally failed to deploy a parachute" will have a much more negative effect. Especially after it happens 4 or 5 times.You have much more faith than I that the media would accurately report what happened... I forget how the rest of it goes, but you're mother's a whore!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #65 April 24, 2002 At this point I'd like to recap a little story told to me by Pat Works about C.G. Godfrog.Well, C.G. Godfrog was a skydiving frog. About 6 foot 2 and the way Pat tells it, it was none other than C.G. himself that taught Pat, not only how to skydive, but, how to swoop into a formation. This would have been sometime back around 1961 at Beehive.Seems to Pat that C.G. invented the swoop and had pretty much perfected it so that C.G. didn't even need a parachute to land. If C.G. timed it just right, he'd pull up out of the dive, sort of kiss the grass with his belly and pop-up to a nice little stand-up landing.C.G. explained that sometimes you'd find what looked like a dead frog laying on the side of the road. According to C.G. these were really just folks that hadn't quite gotten the swoop perfected yet.C.G. Godfrog could do it, but then again, he was a Godfrog.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflyguy 0 #66 April 24, 2002 Another point, He would be instantly banned from a USPA dropzone, if he did it on purpose. Because what he would be doing wouldn't be "Skydiving", per USPA, the same as BASE is not skydiving, per USPA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #67 April 24, 2002 QuoteHe would be instantly banned from a USPA dropzone, if he did it on purpose. Because what he would be doing wouldn't be "Skydiving", per USPA, the same as BASE is not skydiving, per USPAWhy's that?Is there a definition to skydiving somewhere that says you MUST use a parachute?What FAR does it violate? What BSR? Presumably he would wear a sport rig with an in date reserve, to avoid any issues and provide an out. BASE rigs violate several FAR's and BSR's, which is what separates them from skydiving - they can't use airplanes._AmICQ: 5578907MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com AIM: andrewdmetcalfeYahoo IM: ametcalf_1999 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #68 April 24, 2002 >He would be instantly banned from a USPA dropzone, if he did it on purpose.I disagree here. I used to be the S+TA at Brown, and as the guy who would be doing the banning, I wouldn't have banned him if he could prove it was survivable (which, right now, I doubt.) Once someone figures out how to do it, I'll bet you could approach Bryan Burke and talk him into letting you do it at Eloy.-bill von Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #69 April 24, 2002 QuoteWhat FAR does it violate?Well, as long as the pilot didn't know about it and the jumper actually did have a parachute, then probably the only violation is FAR 91.13.If on the other hand if the pilot did know about it or the jumper did NOT have any sort of parachute, there would be a number of violations.QuoteWhat BSR?At the very least -- 2-1 G. -- the one regarding minimum opening altitudes.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ducky 0 #70 April 25, 2002 My $.02, there are currently water ski races that take place in offshore bluewater conditions were slalom skiers reach speeds in excess of 90mph. There have been fatalities from falls,but many falls are survived with borken bones or less. I definately give my vote for the water landing in 4 years or less.kwakStupidity is a crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #71 April 25, 2002 Votes don't cut it.Put up some cash.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Billy 0 #72 April 26, 2002 So are we staring a "pool" on when it happens,, and what technique?? Id be game for that.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billo 0 #73 April 26, 2002 start a pool for the first guy that actually makes it, or a pool for the first guy that bites it after those all too famous last words..."hey guys, watch this!"grab it or wear it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 469 #74 April 29, 2002 I think the technology exsists to land a wingsuit and walk away today - it just needs a nutter and some planning. You do not attach the wheels to the diver - you have a large truck etc on a runway - matching the forward speed of the falling person - therefore relative forward speed = 0! If teh back of the truck is filled with a shock absorbing mechanism that crushs on impact they should be fine - as long as they are good at accuracy! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #75 December 5, 2004 Hooknswoop: "I think someone will land a wingsuit and walk away uninjured in less than 6 years." Quade" "Wanna put any money on that?" QuotePerris, CA (November 23,2004)- Pioneer B.A.S.E. jumper Jeb Corliss and Go Fast! - sponsored test pilot Luigi Cani, have paved the way for a world record landing attempt of a wing-suit—minus a parachute. Jeb and Luigi teamed up to gauge speeds and gather data to safely land Jeb’s wing-suit. Testing was critical, as no one has ever survived a landing attempt without a parachute. Jeb flew in free fall donning a parachute alongside Luigi, who was at the controls of the world’s smallest and fastest parachute—known as the ICARUS VX-39. The two were able to gather data using GPS systems attached to Luigi that tracked exact forward speeds, exact fall rate and glide angles needed for a safe landing. After two days of test piloting, Jeb Corliss said landing the wing-suit was possible as early as next year. "We found there is a definite and reasonable speed for a landing attempt sometime next summer. We’re now developing four different types of technologies to land safely—it’s very important to land with zero injuries," said Corliss after analyzing data from the test flight. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
