riddler 0 #51 May 18, 2004 Quote"superloading" canopies At extremely high wingloads, it seems that every line attachment point would be taking a huge load and that the deformation of the canopy would start to have an effect on lift (if there is any lift on such a pocket-hanky ). Do they manufacture the lines differently for really tiny canopies? I might be tempted to add more lines to give each line attachment point less of a bearing load and also maybe keep the canopy flatter.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #52 May 18, 2004 QuoteAt extremely high wingloads, it seems that every line attachment point would be taking a huge load and that the deformation of the canopy would start to have an effect on lift That would be a problem if the attachment points were "point loading the botom skin, but they are not. The rib seams, crosbracing, and ribs themselves transfer the load in such a way the canopy does not "dimple". Quote(if there is any lift on such a pocket-hanky ). Oh it's there alright. QuoteI might be tempted to add more lines to give each line attachment point less of a bearing load and also maybe keep the canopy flatter. The problem with adding more lines is drag. Seeing video of Luigi in wings level flight shows that the canopy is flying with more than a natural (for that planform) downward angle (read: Steep) simply because at those airspeeds the drag on his body, clothing, and lines is pulling him back under the canopy. It's a phenomena the CReW dogs on the world record knew about an prepared for by wearing slick jumpsuits. Some manufacturers are trying smaller linetypes to combat this problem on smaller canopies.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkwing 5 #53 May 18, 2004 QuoteAt extremely high wingloads, it seems that every line attachment point would be taking a huge load and that the deformation of the canopy would start to have an effect on lift (if there is any lift on such a pocket-hanky ). Do they manufacture the lines differently for really tiny canopies? I might be tempted to add more lines to give each line attachment point less of a bearing load and also maybe keep the canopy flatter. Note that the point loading is the same regardless of the size of the canopy as long as you have the same number of lines. Granted, if you make a tiny canopy it is easy to decide that you don't need the classic A-B-C-D linegroups. -- Jeff My Skydiving History Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FIREFLYR 0 #54 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuote Bad news: expect a string a fatalites from posers and skygods trying to imitate this stunt. Not Likely That VX ain't much smaller then yours already eh? ~J"One flew East,and one flew West..............one flew over the cuckoo's nest" "There's absolutely no excuse for the way I'm about to act" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indyz 1 #55 May 18, 2004 QuoteI don't really feel like joining another website... Check it out: BugMeNot. Passwords for tons "compulsory registration" sites. They even have a cool little bookmarklet that will tell you the password for whatever site you have open at the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #56 May 18, 2004 >At extremely high wingloads, it seems that every line attachment > point would be taking a huge load . . . Why? If you have 44 lines and you weigh 220 at exit, each line takes ~5 lbs of load. (with adjustments for front to rear distribution etc.) It doesn't matter how big the canopy is. >and that the deformation of the canopy would start to have an effect >on lift (if there is any lift on such a pocket-hanky ). The opposite should be true. As you scale down a canopy, it's relative strength (i.e. resistance to deformation) should increase, because you are not making the fabric thinner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #57 May 24, 2004 I emailed GoFast and asked if they will be posting any video or pictures... and this the reply i got... [sic]Yes we will! And soon! I will try to keep you posted. Thanks for the inquiry!!----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duckwater 0 #58 May 24, 2004 As a pilot and someone with a good undestanding of aerodynamics and energy management while flying, the magnitude of this accomplishment cannot be understated. Mike Luigi is an amazing athelete and GREAT guy too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #59 May 24, 2004 Quote Quote(if there is any lift on such a pocket-hanky ). Oh it's there alright. I guess this is why he needs extra weight and to hook the canopy, so he has more speed to transform into lift . QuoteQuoteI might be tempted to add more lines to give each line attachment point less of a bearing load and also maybe keep the canopy flatter. The problem with adding more lines is drag. Seeing video of Luigi in wings level flight shows that the canopy is flying with more than a natural (for that planform) downward angle (read: Steep) simply because at those airspeeds the drag on his body, clothing, and lines is pulling him back under the canopy. It's a phenomena the CReW dogs on the world record knew about an prepared for by wearing slick jumpsuits. Some manufacturers are trying smaller linetypes to combat this problem on smaller canopies. so should the lower lines be thinner (or more aerodynamical) to reduce the drag at the lower part of the flying object ?? And jump naked ...scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
