To all Tony series 2 wingsuit owners,

[bdrake529 0]

I also want to see pics of the suit (on the ground, closeups of the mod, as well as in the air, but mainly just closeups of the mod) and Altitrack data.

Jarno,

I've been mulling this subject over in my head and somethings don't add up (due solely to my lack of understanding, I'd safely guess). I have no real knowledge to contradict what you're saying, so please consider this question a legitimate request for instruction, rather than a hostile challenge (i.e., a "pissing contest").

You've asserted that in determining "sustained" flight, it must be certain that any residual energy from a dive has been dissipated and the suit/pilot is truly executing a flight mode that can indefinitely maintain the claimed fallrate (basically limited only by physical endurance).

That makes sense and appears to be a convincing standard.

However, I'm confused as to how you arrive at your criteria for the "cut off" point of when the suit is no longer "flaring" and is actually flying at a given speed.

Someone first suggested 15 seconds, then another person 30 seconds. You rejected both of these and have stuck with 1 minute being the minimum time to prove a sustained fall rate.

Could you (or anyone else....Robi?) please explain the physics (in layman's terms) of how this is determined? How is a dive converted into lift and how long can that energy be maintained?

Ultimately, without jet boots or some other form of propulsion, we are "powered by gravity" and nothing else, correct? So as our fall rate decreases, doesn't the total energy of the system decrease as well? I also understand that we gain some lift from a horizontal speed element. But isn't this also directly tied to the energy gained from falling? And is not this forward speed quickly bled off when "flaring" the suit because of the increased drag presented in a "slow fall rate" flight mode?

Isn't this roughly the same game as canopy flight? And aren't we wingsuiters significantly less efficient at flying than high-performance canopies (or even low-performance ones)?

I was watching some footage of the CPC and even in the distance event, I'm not seeing people sustain a 30 second swoop. How is a wingsuiter able to maintain dive energy and convert it into lift for a longer period of time? I realize that on the whole, we can hit higher fallrates than swoopers under canopy, but don't we also have much less efficiency in sustaining that energy in a flare?

Thanks,

Brian

Brian Drake

[Capricorn1 0]

BANG BANG BANG!

I don't care how slow you guys get on your pissing contests, Purple/Pink Mike still got the biggest cock!

[mccordia 74]

Quote

Someone first suggested 15 seconds, then another person 30 seconds. You rejected both of these and have stuck with 1 minute being the minimum time to prove a sustained fall rate

Im also not saying what Jeff is doing is flaring (though its fun to annoy him with it untill we finaly gets some proof)

But in short...I can fly at speeds of around mid-30 something mph.
But I have some protrack logs that actually show me (if you take the avg. speed) flying at 25 mph avg during a 40 or second stint.

When I start leveling off my suit, trying to go for the slowest possible fallrate. I start pushing untill I reach the point where I stall/loose lift/whatever. That happens at speeds of as low as 15 mph sometimes.

Leading up to that point, from where I pull the wingsuit into the sub 30 mph speeds till the point where I can push no further and start speeding up again and finaly go back to 'normal flight' in 30 to 40 + mph-ish speeds, I've done around 30 to 40 seconds of flight way, way way bellow speeds that I can NO WAY ever maintain.

Yet if you take the avg. of those 30 to 40 seconds of flight, I suddenly have a 'sustained flight' of 25 mph according to some people.
Look at the graph I posted..though that one has a reaaly clear extreme dive before the leveling off, there is a long bit of slow, slow, slow flying that comes after that where Im using all the energy from the dive before that time. And that goes down to 18mph (and is still sinking when the device stops logging)

I think a lot of people see a flare as a big dive, and then doing a massive pull-out, leveling off. But just going from a relaxed pose into something close or even past a stall is doing exactly that.

Or more extreme...high speed exits...Ive done some freaky high exits where it takes up to 15 seconds to pass my point/altitude of exit again.
Does that mean I can honestly say I have a sustained fallrate of 0 mph for those first 15 seconds? Or does the airplane exit speed maybe have something to do with it.

I mentioned 1 minute, as in the logs Ive seen, and attempts at slow flying Ive done, I can see a slow relaxed push for slow/slower/slowest flying work its way down to incredibly low vallues. Even when using only slighly faster flying as a start-off point.

But the effect wears off. Sometimes its only a 10 second spike, other times it last close to 40 seconds or more before I return to normal flight speeds that I can maintain.


To prove what you're doing is sustained flight, there should be no real difference in speed/dive precede the slow flying, and you should also have the airplane exit behind you for a while already.

Having a full jump log, and being able to take large middle section out of that will show if its truly a maintainable fallrate.

Quote

I was watching some footage of the CPC and even in the distance event, I'm not seeing people sustain a 30 second swoop.

The swoop itself wont last 30 seconds...its only 15 to 20 seconds of maxed flight it gives you, but it can take that long for you to loose ALL the energy untill you finaly go back to your normal fallrate/glide ratio.

Again...Im really looking forward to seeing the altitrack log, and hopefully be shown it actually IS sustain-able flight. As it would truly be an incredible achievement, and a great step forward in wingsuit performance.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[Waldschrat 0]

When you flying your modded suit next time @heffro, please take the altitrack and a gps with you.

So we can balancing the data or graphs.
horizontal speed would be also very interesting for me.
(and yes, i dont trust my mother)

@tony we still waiting till the $ is at 50 cent ;)

[mccordia 74]

Everyone is using the words pissing contest, and this is no such thing..

When you're boasting about a certain perfmance with excact numbers, its not weird to actually ask for some proof is it?

Or didnt I tell you about the time I outflew a gliderplane in a cross-country challenge wearing just my grandmother raincoat and a thong? Sadly no video-camera, gps or device capable of recording freefall speeds produced a log I can show here...but damn it was good, fast flying...

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[sdctlc 0]

Quote

Someone first suggested 15 seconds, then another person 30 seconds. You rejected both of these and have stuck with 1 minute being the minimum time to prove a sustained fall rate.

Sustained is really speculative as you can see from the posts. Personally I think sustained should basically be the average of the entire flight on a full altitude junmp. Data that has been posted from altitrack or other sources shows vastly ranging fall speeds on a single jump at different points. That has to be based on a huge variety of factors. The biggest influence I have noticed involves diving, i.e. to a formation leaving late. You get way more forward speed then you normally get diving and then the stop or flare or going flat (what ever you want to call it) the speed translates to more lift and a slower fall rate but it is going to give a false or artificial non-sustainable fall rate. As you slow down forward you will start falling faster. A good average for the entire flight seems to be the best for sustained compared to short bursts of VERY SLOW fall rates.

An entire flight of 25mph average with very rough math kinda pencils out as follows: assuming the free fall from 12K at 120mph is about 1 minute you would get close to 5min of free fall time at a sustained 25mph fall rate. If you jump from a lower altitude to max out slow speed due to fatigue, clouds whatever GREAT!! but it would fall into the category of manipulated data in my eyes. You are not showing sustained data.

The trick is then to establish a criteria for measurement. 10K fine, 12K fine but some standard should be set so the comparison is apples to apples! Also one and done does not count. In science you need a set of 3 runs to get a statistically valid result. The more the better but generally 3 experimental runs is the statistical min..

Until some standard is set and people follow it and show statistically valid data it is hard to say anything other then Great job on that jump....

Scott C.

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

ok we'll go get pix, its a bit cloudy in paradise today so we'll go to the shop and do it, I can blow the wings up with my in house wind tunnel, [a leaf blower]
and your not trashy just a little misguided,

Did you get the pix yet?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Tony-tonysuits 0]

yep, lots, Jeff's gonna post em, its really not hard,
spesh for a professter of aronautic's

Life is a series of wonderful opportunities,
brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.

tonysuits.com

[pierre3636 0]

ANY PICS YET ??

~ time is ~ time was ~ times past ~

[Tony-tonysuits 0]

I reminded Heffo last night,

Jeff you reading this???

Life is a series of wonderful opportunities,
brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.

tonysuits.com

[PhoenixRising 0]

here are some pics. the left wing has not been done yet so you can see the difference. make sure you pull the wing tape from the body and pick the stitching from in between the wing and body. otherwise you will take the tape apart to.

Justin Shorb

Flock U

Wingsuit organizing, first flight courses and coaching
Flock University
Tonysuits

[Tony-tonysuits 0]

there, simple, thanks Justin,
I'm looking to see if the arm to body zips come undone when backflying, the airflow is right to keep em closed but you know skydiving, if they come unzipped, I'll put a snap on a tab there and could even send them out for anyone that needs em, too early to say, Jeffs been backflying a bunch with no probs,
rock on

Life is a series of wonderful opportunities,
brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.

tonysuits.com

[chrisgray 0]

Thanks for the pics Justin!!

BANG

WSI-6 / PFI-55
The Brothers Gray Wingsuit Academy
http://www.myspace.com/cgwingsuitpilot
http://www.myspace.com/thebrothersgray

[pierre3636 0]

cool - ill check this weekend ... should be easy.

~ time is ~ time was ~ times past ~

[pierre3636 0]

Been thinking about this thread (well the off topic part of it).

All these claims from both sides ... tonysuit folks and bm folks.

Every single number both of you quoted is absolutely worthless in my opinion (and I'm sure any statitician or scientific minds).Firstly ~ the devices used to calculate your decent rates are highly flawed. Inconsistent at best PLUS your decent path if you can call it that is different for every jump and every single other person jumping on every single different airplane. Higher exit speed equals longer hill ride for starters - so max it out the door or open wings earlier or whatever you do you are using the planes forward speed to get lift to start off with. When does your calculator start the measurement?
Hardly scientific.

Secondly ~ claiming that you have had "some" experience of a certain decent rate is a worthless statement - everyday is a different statistical event, today you wake up fresh as a daisy and had some sugar on your cereal and fly at 98% of your personal and body type capabilities. Tomorrow you wake up with a hangover and less sleep and only manage 75% of your capabilities. Doing it once doesn’t mean its better than anyone else’s experience… You need to have a large number of events (i.e. jumps) and under the same circumstances to derive a mean/median decent rate if any kind of claim wants to be made. The bigger the sample the better your chances will be of getting closer to the true average (as we all know from statistics 101). One jumps means nothing ~ I cannot stress that enough ~ event 10 jumps mean nothing ~ its an outlier, which means at best (which is measured by a alti or Neptune or whatever which is fallible in its calculations at BEST plus you are including the lift you get from the planes fwd speed)….catch my drift. Too many variables. Worthless argument to quote or graph your decent rate for any one jump. Show me 50 or 100 and ill be closer to believing you.

Thirdly and by far the best part ~ if we all had the same body types then there would be some sort of constant which we would have been able to eliminate putting us closer to a true average (after many many test jumps with the same exits and the same suits ect). BUT WE DON’T. Nobody is build and flexes the same. So WTF is the point of claiming anything ?! If I throw a paper jet out the door it will kick anyones ass. And if I put a label on it and stap a Neptune to it which reads a 10mph decent rate would I be the winner? This is stupid logic – sorry for ranting but these arguments are BS. Both sides or both parties arguments are flawed in my mind – but maybe I know nothing.

~ time is ~ time was ~ times past ~

[Kunstrasen 0]

Quote

Been thinking about this thread (well the off topic part of it).

All these claims from both sides ... tonysuit folks and bm folks.

Every single number both of you quoted is absolutely worthless in my opinion (and I'm sure any statitician or scientific minds).Firstly ~ the devices used to calculate your decent rates are highly flawed. Inconsistent at best PLUS your decent path if you can call it that is different for every jump and every single other person jumping on every single different airplane. Higher exit speed equals longer hill ride for starters - so max it out the door or open wings earlier or whatever you do you are using the planes forward speed to get lift to start off with. When does your calculator start the measurement?
Hardly scientific.

Secondly ~ claiming that you have had "some" experience of a certain decent rate is a worthless statement - everyday is a different statistical event, today you wake up fresh as a daisy and had some sugar on your cereal and fly at 98% of your personal and body type capabilities. Tomorrow you wake up with a hangover and less sleep and only manage 75% of your capabilities. Doing it once doesn’t mean its better than anyone else’s experience… You need to have a large number of events (i.e. jumps) and under the same circumstances to derive a mean/median decent rate if any kind of claim wants to be made. The bigger the sample the better your chances will be of getting closer to the true average (as we all know from statistics 101). One jumps means nothing ~ I cannot stress that enough ~ event 10 jumps mean nothing ~ its an outlier, which means at best (which is measured by a alti or Neptune or whatever which is fallible in its calculations at BEST plus you are including the lift you get from the planes fwd speed)….catch my drift. Too many variables. Worthless argument to quote or graph your decent rate for any one jump. Show me 50 or 100 and ill be closer to believing you.

Thirdly and by far the best part ~ if we all had the same body types then there would be some sort of constant which we would have been able to eliminate putting us closer to a true average (after many many test jumps with the same exits and the same suits ect). BUT WE DON’T. Nobody is build and flexes the same. So WTF is the point of claiming anything ?! If I throw a paper jet out the door it will kick anyones ass. And if I put a label on it and stap a Neptune to it which reads a 10mph decent rate would I be the winner? This is stupid logic – sorry for ranting but these arguments are BS. Both sides or both parties arguments are flawed in my mind – but maybe I know nothing.

First of all this not a some maker vs another maker thing.

You are right when you say it is very difficult to measure/compare flight data. Well, we can leave it like this and everything is love,peace and harmony. And of course everybody has the best suit (maker and owner). But this is BS as well.

The thing is that the Tony guys came here claiming that performance improved alot after detaching dome seams. Why didn´t they simply show data (same guy, same altidude, same.....anyhow same conditions as good as it it possible) before and after the modification? That would have given some better idea on the effect of the mod. In this case it is just some bla, bla... And of course people will put questions on this.

Just my 2 cents

[pierre3636 0]

well it was heffro and jarno - they both fly diff suits and they argued so yes it was a manufacturer thing in my mind,

agree with the rest of your post.
im over this - not opening this thread again

over and out

~ time is ~ time was ~ times past ~

[bdrake529 0]

Pierre,

I often hear people discount freefall loggers and GPS as substantially inaccurate and practically worthless in reporting authoritative, or even passably reliable data. Yet I've never heard anyone provide any data or logic to back up that assertion.

Would you mind explaining why you've come to your conclusions? I'm honestly curious.

I use both GPS (frequently) and an L&B VISO (every jump) and I've not encountered any glaring reason to distrust the data provided. My freefall times can be verified on jumps with video and my GPS position as displayed in Google Earth always matches my visual references on the jump (e.g., when I land in the center of the 10m diameter pea pit at Elsinore, Google Earth shows my landing in the center of the grey circle in the satellite/high-alt photograph).

I realize there are potential flaws of logic in how one analyzes the data (e.g., not accounting for wind, or merely looking at fallrate "peaks"/"flares"), but I'm not aware of compelling evidence that I should significantly distrust the actual data.

For my sake, and anyone else here with the same curiosity, would you please elaborate on your case against the data acquisition technology available to the general skydiving public?

Thank you,

Brian

Brian Drake

[bdrake529 0]

...and by the way, I found that when I completely un-stitched the arms on my Super Mach 1, I had a much higher fall rate. Great success!!! I'll post pictures and logger data soon.

Oh, wait....

(edit) for the record, this is a joke. I have not tried the mod Tony has posted about so I have no idea of the impact on my fallrate.

Brian Drake

[Capricorn1 0]

Pink Mike can outfly all of you guys while flying naked.

Pink Mike can fly on my ass anytime.

[pierre3636 0]

ok brian - its all very vague - which data aquisition technologies are we talking about and which ones are being used to state the claims a few posts higher up? brands and models.

where are the "data aquisition technologies" in each case mounted?

what are the controled enviroments ?

how are you creating a "level playing field" for your observations.

are these "data aquisition technologies" effective enough to measure a change in 5mph decent rate on a low base lilke 35mph? consistently?

reading your first sentence again slowly i get he impression you are assuming perfect data unless proven otherwise? thats not an argument im trying to understand your logic. is that the case?

PM me - lets chat. lets not re thread again

aaaaaaah purple mike

~ time is ~ time was ~ times past ~

[The111 1]

Quote

I often hear people discount freefall loggers and GPS as substantially inaccurate and practically worthless in reporting authoritative, or even passably reliable data. Yet I've never heard anyone provide any data or logic to back up that assertion.

Would you mind explaining why you've come to your conclusions? I'm honestly curious.

I use both GPS (frequently) and an L&B VISO (every jump) and I've not encountered any glaring reason to distrust the data provided. My freefall times can be verified on jumps with video and my GPS position as displayed in Google Earth always matches my visual references on the jump (e.g., when I land in the center of the 10m diameter pea pit at Elsinore, Google Earth shows my landing in the center of the grey circle in the satellite/high-alt photograph).

I realize there are potential flaws of logic in how one analyzes the data (e.g., not accounting for wind, or merely looking at fallrate "peaks"/"flares"), but I'm not aware of compelling evidence that I should significantly distrust the actual data.

For my sake, and anyone else here with the same curiosity, would you please elaborate on your case against the data acquisition technology available to the general skydiving public?

Well said Brian, I don't track my jumps much but if you know how to use the equipment you can get reasonable results. I've done tons of jumps comparing video time to logger time and it's very close.

However, trying to use data to prove a point without actually showing the data, is kind of silly.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[VectorBoy 0]

Yet I've never heard anyone provide any data or logic to back up that assertion.

Would you mind explaining why you've come to your conclusions? I'm honestly curious.


Thank you,

Brian

[bdrake529 0]

Glen,

Your experiment challenge is valid and I'd like to try it. Logistically this will be a bit tricky since I don't own all that equipment, so I'd have to arrange to borrow some of it.

I take it you have done the same experiment. Would you please post your data and findings?


I don't understand how "standing still" would be the only explanation for the accuracy of my landing to the displayed data. The data points leading up to "touch down" all correspond with a reasonable expectation and visual recollection.

Brian Drake

[bdrake529 0]

Quote

However, trying to use data to prove a point without actually showing the data, is kind of silly.

Are you saying you don't believe Chuck Blue? Blasphemy!

Brian Drake