Vins 0
Recommended Posts
I came across your exchange of thoughts and want to contribute to your quest of understanding more about lift. And… to the pilot out there, you should know a little more about the phenomenon called lift and the concept of flied in general. I address this reaction primarily to him. There we go.
Think of a kite children play with on sunny and windy days on the beach. The shape of a kite creates to little lift (if any) for it to fly. The wind blows into the front of the kite, which is at an angle. The wind hits the kite and is deflected down. This is what makes a kite go up. No lift involved at all. Of course this only works because a kite is ultra light.
Mathematically we can say that lift increases as the downward push of air increases. To be clear, one my ad downward push of air to the effect of lift but it is not the same as lift! It’s equal to flaps on the wing of a plane. Flaps also create downward push of air to allow a plane to fly at low speed (when the amount of lift decreases and can’t keep the plane in the air because of it’s (relative to the amount of lift) high weight). To speak of effective “lift” one has to take weight into the equation. The amount of lift (if any) created by whatever shape of the human body is insignificant because humans are by far to heavy for this “ lift” to have a meaningful effect. So a person moving forward in freefall is actually transforming some of the potential energy (altitude) into kinetic energy by using deflection of air. And primarily a human body is going down isn’t it?? That’s it.
Enjoy your flights have fun but if you want to put theory behind it all please don’t be to roman-tic or to emotional, it’s only a sport.
By the way, there is a section on Nasas website which explains lift (not the same as downward push of air!!!) to children.
Think of a kite children play with on sunny and windy days on the beach. The shape of a kite creates to little lift (if any) for it to fly. The wind blows into the front of the kite, which is at an angle. The wind hits the kite and is deflected down. This is what makes a kite go up. No lift involved at all. Of course this only works because a kite is ultra light.
Mathematically we can say that lift increases as the downward push of air increases. To be clear, one my ad downward push of air to the effect of lift but it is not the same as lift! It’s equal to flaps on the wing of a plane. Flaps also create downward push of air to allow a plane to fly at low speed (when the amount of lift decreases and can’t keep the plane in the air because of it’s (relative to the amount of lift) high weight). To speak of effective “lift” one has to take weight into the equation. The amount of lift (if any) created by whatever shape of the human body is insignificant because humans are by far to heavy for this “ lift” to have a meaningful effect. So a person moving forward in freefall is actually transforming some of the potential energy (altitude) into kinetic energy by using deflection of air. And primarily a human body is going down isn’t it?? That’s it.
Enjoy your flights have fun but if you want to put theory behind it all please don’t be to roman-tic or to emotional, it’s only a sport.
By the way, there is a section on Nasas website which explains lift (not the same as downward push of air!!!) to children.
Vins 0
Hello solovinofly!
I like so much your nick because in italian it means onlywinefly (but maybe you know) and I invite you to came in Italy to discover booth things that my country produces and export in world wide: good wine and the biggest way to fly, invented by Marco Tiezzi. But not only, the are also beautifull girls... (not invented by Marco I mean, I hope so!)
You wrote interestig argument to debate but I think those arument are already debated in this thread an for this reason, in order to don't repeat the same things to infinte, I invite you to read and pay attention in particular all posted by fedykin the most afflilate to this discussion (but unfortunately he left this discussion as I posted some referenced data).
You'll find all answers.
Infact fedykin have already wrote many things similar to your post (e.g. about the canopy that for fedykin doesn't realy fly) and I haven't found nothing to original to discuss.
I like so much your nick because in italian it means onlywinefly (but maybe you know) and I invite you to came in Italy to discover booth things that my country produces and export in world wide: good wine and the biggest way to fly, invented by Marco Tiezzi. But not only, the are also beautifull girls... (not invented by Marco I mean, I hope so!)
You wrote interestig argument to debate but I think those arument are already debated in this thread an for this reason, in order to don't repeat the same things to infinte, I invite you to read and pay attention in particular all posted by fedykin the most afflilate to this discussion (but unfortunately he left this discussion as I posted some referenced data).
You'll find all answers.
Infact fedykin have already wrote many things similar to your post (e.g. about the canopy that for fedykin doesn't realy fly) and I haven't found nothing to original to discuss.
Vins 0
Quotedon't be to roman-tic or to emotional, it's only a sport.
For many people it's only a sport. Yes I know.
But not for me. For me it's more than sport, more than a experience. It's something that changed my life. It's something that I feel indeep, in my bones, in my blood, in my mind, in my spirit, in my friends.
If this it's only a sport it won't find a very evolution.
Why do I think so? Because flying it's an intinct...
Difficult to explane as easy to feel.
When we'll stop to think that it's only a sport, we'll set free our soul, the most ancient dream will came true and we'll just fly.
I'm romantic or emotional? Yes I am.
For this reason nobody can destroy my dreams...
fedykin 0
heya vins, back, feeling dreadfull from last night....
right....here we go again!
im in no way going to dispute that tiezzi has done a pretty good job promoting himself via all of the publications....paramag etc... however
to claim that he and he alone 'invented' angled flight is vague and difficult to substantiate.
When we're talking about inventing angled flight what do we mean?
do we mean he was the very first person to ever fly in an angle? Do we mean that he and he alone devised a complete theory which spurned the development of the activity?or something else...
I think it is far fetched to say that no-one had ever gone steeper than a normal track before tiezzi.
Thats almost like saying that before Olav no-one had ever gone head down....
Each of these two individuals and those that were around them at the time were the figureheads of the time in a particular sphere fo activity.
Tiezzi was pushing it very hard in Lapalisse organising and to be honest the stuff when i was there ages back was really hot(head down to atmo to track then back). But to claim sole ownership and development of everything with an angle is a bit far fetched. People undoubtably were moving steeper than normal tracking all over the world, Marco saw a niche and ran with it.
Id strongly argue that the people that have done the most for angled flight are babylon. They've exposed more people than anyone else to multi dimensional flight. They're the biggest school is the world with probably the most experienced instructors knocking about. If they had contact with him at Lapalisse then yeah quiet possibly there was an exchange of ideas and in my opinon, they've run further with the concept than marco.
I havent seen anything tiezzi's done that exceeds what was done in 2000 in france, whereas babylon have really been doing some very interesting stuff and having a more positive impact upon the community. All of these publication are great publicity for angled flight and no doubt for sometime tiezzi has been a very vocal and public advocate of angled flight, G too.
each one of these grouping will no doubt try to represent thier interests however they see fit, tiezzi has done it in part by petitioning the FAI to some success in Freestyle and Freefly. The term Atmonauti(tm) to me is very much a marketing ploy. There is a niche market for medium experience jumpers that arent keen on coaching and like to be with groups. I do think that as pitching himself as the inventor of all angled flight isnt the best move. Olav did something similar by trademarking freefly, which did make him look fairly ridiculous. People in flyaway in Las Vegas were flying head down before him, people were sit flying and tracking before him. Tiezzi is first and foremost a load organiser who's meal ticket is angled flight and he's deperately trying to cling onto a place in the sport.
by the way...SoloVinoFly is Marc Arnould.
he's still a wierdo!
NWPoul 1
Having read this thread can't understand about what people talking here
About lift of Human Body? or About atmonauty?
Can't say much about atmo but regarding lift...
Comrades, pls give it a try to know WHAT the LIFT FORCE IS!
Just definition of the Lift Forse can give you the right and clear answer:
Human body (as well as ANY other body) CAN (and do) produce the LIFT FORCE
Lift by definition is a component of the Full Aerodynamical Force perpendicular to the relative wind...
So just the fact, that someone can fall not stright down but with some Horizontal speed obviusly proove, that he create the lift!
2Frost:
QuoteIt was somewhat difficult for me to step away from the belief i held for many years that a human body is just not aerodynamic enough to generate lift. But now i do feel that even though it's minimal, the lift IS generated.
As I said to you on SkyCentre, it's seems, that you one from few in this thread, who understand things right but,
Lift Force, produced by human body is not minimal!
and for example in good track when tracker drive forward on 1 ft per each 1 ft he fell - the L/D is 1/1 which mean, that he produce as Lift the same "amount of force" as Drag!
Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?
fedykin 0
hey Poul
i think the debate is over not only the possiblity, but also what is the primary driver.
i am arguing that it is angular deflection, with lift being a minor feature. others being lift exclusively.
to say that just because someone goes forward, then by definition that in itself is proof of lift is a bit of a jump of logic, based upon what i feel is an incorrect premise.
is forward movement proof itself of lift, or evidence of something else at play? id argue that the dynamic at play has half a dozen variables at work such as a pitched angle to change the center of gravity that in turn allows us to deflect the relative wind in such manner to move along an axis. lift probably does have a very minor role due to the irregular profile+numerous drag anchors.
If lift is the overiding factor then i would expect fall rates to be much lower, but we are talking about a minor feature. Good trackers are getting 90 miles an hour off of thier protracks vs. 120 flat. Take into account how much more surface area is being employed and the variables start to shake out a bit. Movement typically results in more drag due to a larger steering surface being employed. Check out people carving in the tunnel and the slower airspeeds used.
i think the debate is over not only the possiblity, but also what is the primary driver.
i am arguing that it is angular deflection, with lift being a minor feature. others being lift exclusively.
to say that just because someone goes forward, then by definition that in itself is proof of lift is a bit of a jump of logic, based upon what i feel is an incorrect premise.
is forward movement proof itself of lift, or evidence of something else at play? id argue that the dynamic at play has half a dozen variables at work such as a pitched angle to change the center of gravity that in turn allows us to deflect the relative wind in such manner to move along an axis. lift probably does have a very minor role due to the irregular profile+numerous drag anchors.
If lift is the overiding factor then i would expect fall rates to be much lower, but we are talking about a minor feature. Good trackers are getting 90 miles an hour off of thier protracks vs. 120 flat. Take into account how much more surface area is being employed and the variables start to shake out a bit. Movement typically results in more drag due to a larger steering surface being employed. Check out people carving in the tunnel and the slower airspeeds used.
NWPoul 1
Hi Bro!
I think, that all confusions regarding the Lift Force came from cunfusions about the Lift Force:)
First:
All what you can get from the relative wind you can get only by ineract with them get the feedback i.e. All the aerodynamical forces (Lift and Drag) for ANY OBJECT (skydiver, airplane etc) producing by deflecting the air some way!
So saying "it's not the lift - it's deflecting the relative wing" just senseless
It' all sir Newton
Second:
Yes the horisontal speed is quite enough evidense of Lift, coz if there was no lift (perpendicular component to the relative wind, which without any other forces beside Gravity and drag will be parallel the vector of gravity force) there was no force wich drive the body forward
I think, that all confusions regarding the Lift Force came from cunfusions about the Lift Force:)
First:
All what you can get from the relative wind you can get only by ineract with them get the feedback i.e. All the aerodynamical forces (Lift and Drag) for ANY OBJECT (skydiver, airplane etc) producing by deflecting the air some way!
So saying "it's not the lift - it's deflecting the relative wing" just senseless
It' all sir Newton
Second:
Yes the horisontal speed is quite enough evidense of Lift, coz if there was no lift (perpendicular component to the relative wind, which without any other forces beside Gravity and drag will be parallel the vector of gravity force) there was no force wich drive the body forward
Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?
Allo allo NWPoul. Not ANY body can produce the lift force. A ball can never create lift (check internet for instance NASA). If Vince allows me: There are two explanations for planes to stay in the air. In fact there are two definitions of "lift" (only one is right though). You find them here.
The popular explanation, PATH-LENGTH or AIRFOIL-SHAPE: wings do not deflect air, instead they are sucked upwards because the "airfoil" shape has a longer surface on top. Airfoils are curved on top and flat below, and therefore the air follows a longer path above than below. Air that is divided at the leading edge of a wing must rejoin at the trailing edge. Since the upper surface of the wing is longer, it causes the air to flow faster over the upper surface, which (by Bernoulli's principle) creates lower pressure above. Because lift is caused by the shape of the wing, wings can create lift at zero attack angle. They can create lift simply from path length difference which leads to pressure difference, and no air needs to be deflected. After a wing has passed by, the air does not remain moving downwards. (THIS EXPLANATION IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED.)
The physics explanation, NEWTONIAN or ATTACK ANGLE: wings are forced upwards because they are tilted and they deflect air (like the kite in the earlier example). A wing's trailing edge must be sharp, and it must be aimed diagonally downward if it's to create lift. Both the upper and lower surfaces of the wing act to deflect the air. The upper surface deflects air downwards because the airflow "sticks" to the wing surface and follows the tilted wing (this phenomena is called "Coanda effect" or "Flow Attachment.") After the wing has passed by, air remains flowing downwards. Airplanes fly because of Newton's 3rd law (action/reaction forces,) the law of Conservation of Momentum, and the Coanda effect.
I said earlier that humans in freefall can not produce a significant amount of lift (not without a jet engine in combination with a wingsuite of some type). One can only speak of a significant amount of lift when a body has the potential to up. Two things are important for that: reative low weight compared to (lift)shape of the body and/or high speed (form of trust). That’s way even in atmomauti we primarily go down (in conditions where there is no wind). I think that deflecting air to move forward can give a similar sensation as lift would (at least, the expected sensation of lift since we never experienced it in freefall).
Is see now reason to not enjoy this phenomenon. Nobody wants to destroy anybodies dreams. But lift is not a religion 
, its physics. You are not moving forward because of a significant amount of lift but because of a lot of deflection of air. Like I said, enjoy it anywayzzzz.
NWPoul 1
QuoteAllo allo NWPoul. Not ANY body can produce the lift force. A ball can never create lift (check internet for instance NASA).
Heh, I thought to wrote "any non fully symmethrical body" but it would be not quite right, coz even a ball can create a lift, beeng placed into relative wind if you give em a spin (lift will be created by difference of airflow speed around spinning ball) so I had to wrote ANY BODY CAN:)
QuoteIf Vince allows me: There are two explanations for planes to stay in the air. In fact there are two definitions of "lift" (only one is right though). You find them here.
Please, give another official definition of the Lift Force...
QuoteIs see now reason to not enjoy this phenomenon. Nobody wants to destroy anybodies dreams. But lift is not a religion
, its physics. You are not moving forward because of a significant amount of lift but because of a lot of deflection of air. Like I said, enjoy it anywayzzzz.
I'am a liitle bit confused
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
In the same post you said that "Bernulli only" flying model is flawed an the airplaines are flying with help of AOA, deflecting air and Sir Newton...
And now say tha deflecting of air is not a lift
Again, please give the another (LF = perpendicular to relative wind componet of AF) oficcial definition of the Lift Force...
Let the Force be with us
Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?
hihi
Yes it is confusing. The thing I said is that the amount of lift being created by a spinning ball or a human body in freefall is not significant. It doesn’t explain moving horizontally in freefall. Deflection of air does. The original explorations of some atmonauts about lift was the foil shape and the negative pressure on top of the flyer (and rigs taking off). That part of the definition of lift is smaller then people used to think. It’s more attack angle. But if you sum the effect of low pressure and angle of attack it is still insignificant because of the relative high weight of a person in relation to the lift force that a human is able to create.
Does that make sense?
Yes it is confusing. The thing I said is that the amount of lift being created by a spinning ball or a human body in freefall is not significant. It doesn’t explain moving horizontally in freefall. Deflection of air does. The original explorations of some atmonauts about lift was the foil shape and the negative pressure on top of the flyer (and rigs taking off). That part of the definition of lift is smaller then people used to think. It’s more attack angle. But if you sum the effect of low pressure and angle of attack it is still insignificant because of the relative high weight of a person in relation to the lift force that a human is able to create.
Does that make sense?
NWPoul 1
QuoteDoes that make sense?
Sorry but it does not
At first: there is no such thing as negative pressure:)
(only low pressure relative to some reference pressure) roughly pressure is a sum of hitings of moleculas at surface...
So is your body have a shape of wing or it's more like a bag of potatos, the only forces you can have - the forces of hiting and deflecting back the air particles
Having the relative wind you can adjust you body position so that hiting particles coming from one side will have higher momentum, than from the other (yes, not only because of plain summary of your freefall speed and it's own kinetic enregy (temperature of gas) but also because of thier copmlicated way and behavour around you body to hit you from backside:) )
So actually all that you (me, automonuties, airplaines and whatever) can do with air to create lift- it's deflecting him with particular maner:)
So when you track with L/D=1 you create quite significant amount of Lift (in this particular case
L= W/sqrt(2) )
And this LIFT not less lift than that wich let the airplanes fly
Using this Lift you can fly like an airplane (yet like a bad airplane:) too, if you have engine with enough emount of thrust (can be calculated from the L/D)
and vice versa:
Without an engene an airplanes can't fly as they do, they can only glide, but much better L/D give them much longer glide (and possibility to climb for a while untill they lost an airspeed).
Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?
Hello everybody. Wow lots of debate over this subject. Allow me to furnish you guys with my own little theory about atmo flight and the whole lift Vs deflection argument…..
I personally feel that despite the fact that we are descending rapidly when doing any type of skydiving, certain amounts of lift can be generated. However this is merely a by product angled flight (Flight used in the romantic terms ) and is not the overriding factor that allows us to cover great distances.
I think we can better understand what is happening if we look closer at a flyers trajectory. Now I don’t have a scientific background or understanding in advanced fluid dynamics so don’t expect and links to NASA websites backing this up. Though I do intend to provide some photographic evidence that supports my theory. And by the way, That’s it, just a theory not a statement!
OK lets start with the Atmo diagram: The diagram clearly shows that the angle of the flyers runs parallel with the line of trajectory. If this is correct then yes, the leading edge of the body is the top of the head and shoulders. It is now easy to make comparisons with the cross section of the flyer and an airfoil even though there are massively contentious issues in aerodynamic efficiency and drag to consider. Anyways, In this case the burble would be coming off the toes in the line of trajectory. However this is not really possible in that particular orientation, to achieve this a flyer would have to be flying in a much steeper angle or be propelled by some form of engine etc….
Where’s the proof? Well let’s look at the next attachment. X flyers smoke atmo: Yes it is just a moment in time, but given the calibre of the flyers on the photo, Im confident that they pretty much remained in these angles throughout the dive. The atmo with smoke photo taken from the Xfest clearly shows the smoke trails of the flyers following a much steeper line than the orientation of the body. Surely this smoke trail is a true indication of the line of trajectory??????
Even if we look at the most efficient flyer in the photo, top forward flyer, there is still a difference in the angle of his body and the line of his trajectory.
If you think its just this photo please feel free to check out other smoke atmo photos taken from the side, Im sure that you will see a similar visual each time.
If this is correct, then Isn’t it reasonable to assume that given the trajectory and the body position a large proportion of the relative wind is hitting the underside of the flyers body? Not the leading edge of the head and shoulders. It makes more sense to me to suggest that a large proportion of the relative wind still comes from below the flyer and is then trapped for an instance creating an area of high pressure, slowing the fall rate. It then continues on the path of deflection, subsequently initiating forward drive.
Taking all of this into account, I find the Atmo diagram slightly misleading in its visual explanation of technical Atmonauti flight.
In fact I would say that the comparative tracking diagram still holds true for atmo in regards to trajectory, if the flyers were rotated ever so slightly and the body position was somewhat different, wider with the arse up, and with the head being lower. That’s about it.
While I’m on the subject, the atmo body position itself. I think a lot of the stuff regarding what it feels like can simply be put down to the body position.
I would imagine that the head being lower in Atmo does a few things that classic flat tracking does not. If flown in a steeper angle it will burble out the neck and chest area, decreasing a flyers surface area at the leading edge resulting in more vertical speed and more forward drive. Also the burble effect will create the feeling of lighter pressure on the chest, I.e. the floating sensation. Also by having the head low allows for the wind to travel over the top slightly probably adding to a small amount of lift, and certainly creating an area of high pressure between the neck and the yoke (rig lift explained). The head position, steeper angle and the dearched position would most probably lead to the aforementioned floaty Atmo sensations.
Anyways. My personal conclusions…..
•Lift? Probably
•Angular deflection? Most definatley
•Lift the initiating or overriding factor? Probably not.
•A good crack? Without a doubt!!!!
Final word: Though I obviously have differing technical views I still have a lot of respect for Marco and Gi. They have done a lot to shed light on what was a pretty grey area of freeflying and made it widely accessible for everyone. Cheers guys.
Have fun, stay safe.
NWPoul 1
Hi:)
Yes the relative wind hit the body not only at leading edge, but at all lower surface i.e. body meet the realtive wind at some AOA
But it's the same as wing of airplane does! (despite the fact. that asymetrycal wing profile can generate lift at 0 AOA, for most plaines this lift won't be enough).
So if yo join
and
in your post it will be quite correct coz
Lift is Lift no matter if it produced by deflecting air at 0 AOA (yes even at 0 AOA you deflecting it) or deflecting air at steeper AOA
Yes the relative wind hit the body not only at leading edge, but at all lower surface i.e. body meet the realtive wind at some AOA
But it's the same as wing of airplane does! (despite the fact. that asymetrycal wing profile can generate lift at 0 AOA, for most plaines this lift won't be enough).
So if yo join
Quote•Lift? Probably
and
QuoteAngular deflection? Most definatley
in your post it will be quite correct coz
Lift is Lift no matter if it produced by deflecting air at 0 AOA (yes even at 0 AOA you deflecting it) or deflecting air at steeper AOA
Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?
Yes I agree, Lift could be produced. If only in small measures.
Dependant on the angle of the body I would agree that, yes, it is defiantly possible for the body to meet the relative wind as a wing does But this would require either a steep angle or faster forward movement. I dont deny its possible though.
I can also see your comparison between the asymmetrical wing profile and the Atmo position and how in both cases higher pressure is created at the bend resulting in a slower decent rate.
Quotefor most plaines this lift won't be enough).
Yeah, and certainly not for us. But we all give it a good go.
I would say however due to issues with drag (clothing etc...), shape, aerodynamic deformities and weight, that there are massive differences in efficiency when you compare a human body to an airfoil. hence why we dont travel as far in comparisson, Obviously. If we are flying then in the big scheme of things were extremely inefficient at doing so. Like Fedykin commented, even calling it a glide would take a stretch of the imagination.
I think That the atmo angles do allow for a pretty reasonable amount of flight given our intrinsic inefficiencies.
NWPoul 1
QuoteYes I agree, Lift could be produced. If only in small measures.
Is more than half of your weight (or say ~140 lbs of lift for some with exit weight of 200 lbs) "small measures" for you? if it is than yes you have it right, but for me it is quite significant:)
QuoteI can also see your comparison between the asymmetrical wing profile and the Atmo position
It's not actually my comprasion...
My point as simple as definition of Lift Force:
To get horisontal speed in freefall you need the lift
So if you have the horizontal speed - you have created the lift! period...
Regarding "minimal, minor or insignificant" there is a simple way to find out what amount of Lift you get - analyse your trajectory and get the L/D
and the simple formula for sustained nonpowered flight Weight^2=Lift^2+Drag^2
So you can see, that a good trackers (don't know much about atmonauts) can create the Lift Force more than half of their exit weight.
Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?
Regarding Andrewnewell: If you think its just this photo please feel free to check out other smoke atmo photos taken from the side, Im sure that you will see a similar visual each time.
Note that smoke jumps in atmo most often are done against the direction of the wind to get better visuals. I don’t mean the relative wind but the (horizontal) wind at freefall altitude. This is to create the (by the way very nice illusion) of more horizontal speed of the atmonauts. In effect the wind blows the smoke in the opposite direction of atmonauti trajectory. So most pictures of smoke jumps are even biased and still you see the effect as mentioned by Andrewnewell. Nice illustration that we can’t speak of significant amounts of lift.
Feel like jumping!!!
Note that smoke jumps in atmo most often are done against the direction of the wind to get better visuals. I don’t mean the relative wind but the (horizontal) wind at freefall altitude. This is to create the (by the way very nice illusion) of more horizontal speed of the atmonauts. In effect the wind blows the smoke in the opposite direction of atmonauti trajectory. So most pictures of smoke jumps are even biased and still you see the effect as mentioned by Andrewnewell. Nice illustration that we can’t speak of significant amounts of lift.
Feel like jumping!!!
NWPoul 1
QuoteNice illustration that we can’t speak of significant amounts of lift.
Ok let's see on this pic
From the pic L/D is about 0.45 (see the attached croped pic, which is a rectangular with diagonal in line with a smoke trace and with base in line with horizon...
the dimensions of the crop pic is 128 pixels Hor. / 282 pixels Vert. so L/D = 128/282 = 0.454)
With L/D=0.45
This jumper create a Lift Force which equal of 41% of his weight ( L = W*(L/D)/sqrt(1 + (L/D)^2) )
So if his exit weight is about 200 lbs - he create a 82 lbs of Lift Force...
Is it significant?
Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?
Hi Solovinofly,
I didnt know that. Interesting stuff.
Is it just me or does that make no sense. Im sorry I dont have a degree in physics or anything but from what I can gather you are saying that you need lift inorder to get horizontal speed? right. well OK, how do you explain fast horizontal movement in the headown position, is the headown flyer creating lift to make horizontal movement?
I didnt know that. Interesting stuff.
QuoteTo get horisontal speed in freefall you need the lift
So if you have the horizontal speed - you have created the lift! period...
Is it just me or does that make no sense. Im sorry I dont have a degree in physics or anything but from what I can gather you are saying that you need lift inorder to get horizontal speed? right. well OK, how do you explain fast horizontal movement in the headown position, is the headown flyer creating lift to make horizontal movement?
Hey Piers, don't leave us now that the discussion become very interesting
Anyway, I think the attached files can explane better than I do about the diffusion of angled flight showing who, years ago, have done what.
While, from 2000, Paramag showed per years the angled flight promoted by Marco Tiezzi (and never seen before), Babylon and others did the only traking jump ever made:
the horizontal movement with the torso predominantly horizontal with respect to the ground (FAI Addendum B-6, Diagonal Orientation)
The attached file 1 shows the publicity of Babylon Freefly school in Paramag for the year 2001.
An interestig comparison is the publicity of Atom Legend. On 2002 Babylon and Atmonauti was both sponsored by Parachute the France and what they showed was very significant: in the pic 2 Babylon do a traditional traking jump and in the pic 3 Marco and Gi do atmo flight, as promoted by Marco since 2000 in the same magazine.
It'll pass few years before magazines will show other people to use this innovative technique.
On 2002 Paramag publics the "Project Evolution", see pic 4. Parachute the France creates a story for own publicity and choose Atmonauti because they rapresent the evolution for human in who realy fly. The particular shape of Gi shown on the cover, was presented for the fisrt time on the DVD "Atmonauti 2000". In pic 5 you can see a frame.
By this shape Gigliola have recorded a very low vertical rate: 140 km/h!
The pic 6, from Paramag 2004, shows once again the only tracking jump ever made by Babylon and at this point I haven't seen yet any angled flight (not made by Atmonauti).
Picture 7: here it is the new publicity of Babylon Fly School. Is the first time that they show a own angled flight, after 4 year of practice.
I think the particular shape used in the publicity is a trubute to the Project Evolution for what Atmonauti rapresent for human flight (see pics 4 and 5). Also it seems that this shape is the same for trace (but I'm not sure).
I would remind you that in the years 2003 and 2004 Babylon was joined to X-team and improved the secrets of angled flight directly from the inventor as learnt since 2000.
In the italian website paracadutismo.it , Marco, wrote:
Babylon since 2000 in France, boogie after boogie, was came many times to flying in Atmonauti learning the technique. With Eli at the Espace Boogie on 2003 we made many jumps in atmo. Breafing and debreafing was succeded and the progression was rapid. (http://www.paracadutismo.it/forum/showthread.php?p=46631#post46631)
Now I would know what you think about these documents and in particular about what Marco wrote on Paracadutismo.it
Inventor of angled flight or inventor of stories?
Please, let me know.
Vins
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites