More is more?

[yuri_base 1]

Yo!

We're in "more is more" phase of wingsuit "development" right now.

Well, what do you think? Is more more? Is less less? Is more less? Is less more?

Or we're in "get the talented aerospace engineer see our retarded stuff and laugh and show us the basics" baby period?

Or should we just start from scratch, learn those basics and start designing amazing lean&mean flying machines of the future?!

Yuri

Android+Wear/iOS/Windows apps:
L/D Vario, Smart Altimeter, Rockdrop Pro, Wingsuit FAP
iOS only: L/D Magic
Windows only: WS Studio

[monkycndo 0]

Hmmmmm, biplane WS.

Why didn't I think of that?

50 donations so far. Give it a try.

You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Hmmmmm, biplane WS.

Why didn't I think of that?

It's old hat.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Skyjester 0]

Quote

. . . and start designing amazing lean&mean flying machines of the future?!

I´ve done some bionics.
My first paper model of this wing concept amazed our simple minds when we made the first flight tests.

I´m busy with too many projects and there is no easy way for us to develop a wingsuit on that model at the moment.

I also got plans for two different wing structures (bionic science), which I like to combinate:

1. Electrostatic airfoil via "living strings" (intregration of moving synthetic fibre strings in air cells)
The concept from flies when they create electrostatic energy by scrubbing their legs and transfer it to their wings.

2. Surface in micro mushroom structure (I don´t eat them )


Every wingsuit manufactor with enough experience in 3D flexibles is welcome to work with us

don´t pester the jester . . or better: WHY SO SERIOUS ? ?

www.pralle-zeiten.de

[VectorBoy 0]

It's old hat.

Lemme guess you invented that back when you invented the WS instructor and the atmonuati? My bad the Furnarimonuati.

[diablopilot 2]

Naw, I was making a joke about Vladi, and/or Chris Martin doing the wingsuit tandems a few years back.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[monkycndo 0]

Not talking tandems. I mean solo pilot biplane wingsuit. I'm sure between all the engahneers on here someone can figure it out.

50 donations so far. Give it a try.

You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity

[VectorBoy 0]

Yah mean like a dragonfly?

[The111 1]

Quote

Not talking tandems. I mean solo pilot biplane wingsuit. I'm sure between all the engahneers on here someone can figure it out.

You're assuming one of those engineers knows where to find people with 4 arms?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[skyjumpsteve 0]

Found her!

http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/8114/arms4vw.jpg

hey...and for even more performance she has 4 legs!

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news_images/20071107/p11c.jpg

[zipplewrath 1]

Quote

Yo!

We're in "more is more" phase of wingsuit "development" right now.

Well, what do you think? Is more more? Is less less? Is more less? Is less more?

It's a "we don't know what we want yet" phase. The wingsuit wars of the old RW days was because there was a perception that slower fall rates and larger control authority was needed. This was probably true for folks who hadn't quite gotten the hang of approaches and matching fall rates. They needed large variations in fall rates. They also felt that they needed large control authority to do turns. As time went by, they figured out that faster speeds gave you all the control authority you needed if you flew efficiently (don't go low, smooth docks, etc.)

So the question becomes what are the wingsuit folks looking for? Faster speeds? slower fall rates? Greater control authority?

If you look at square canopy development, you're gonna see much of the same thing. Started out at moderate to almost small sizes. Pursued larger and larger canopies to slow down fall rates and achieve more controlled accuracy. Then the "need for speed" came in. People sacrificed landing accuracy and low speed performance (as well as some opening "forgiveness") for higher speeds. They also discovered that at higher speeds, you got better control authority in unstable wind conditions. Finally, more "efficient" flight was found at higher speeds (better glide ratios even though descent rate was higher). But if you're shooting accuracy, or doing CRW you'll probably choose a different canopy than if you're swooping a pond.

What you wanna do with a wingsuit? Longer times aloft? You probably want about as much fabric as you can put out there (a canopy you wear as oppose to hang under). You want speed? You want only as much fabric as you can "work". Efficiency is going to be the key here. Think of a good "track" position and fill it in with fabric. You want total distance regardless of time aloft? You'll probably want a combination. Efficiency with associated speed. Grab as much air as you can but keep your drag low. You have a finite amount of energy to "spend" and you want to spend as little on drag and as much on propulsion as possible.

Look at sail planes. There are speed demons meant more for aerobatics, there are the distance models meant for efficiency, and there are the "time aloft" models that fly slower than a feather, but hardly descend at all.

[mccordia 74]

Quote

So the question becomes what are the wingsuit folks looking for? Faster speeds? slower fall rates? Greater control authority?

To me, the answer to that one is, the more we fly, the happier I am.
Im definitely wanting to push the control side of things (formation flying/aerobatics) but really hope both of those develop alongside with the distances flown and time we fly.

Distance/Glide would be my focus, and getting most freefall time out of that optimal glide-slope/angle the 2nd one.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[VectorBoy 0]

I want thrust vectoring, or "pop" .......kidding.

Gimme speed then gimme changes in pitch with some funky grips on the buddies, a little "el rollo" into a gravitron ( think roller coaster) an orbitron, inverted diamond track, side slipping and spinner to ride along as proof we are not making stories up.

[zipplewrath 1]

Quote

To me, the answer to that one is, the more we fly, the happier I am.
Distance/Glide would be my focus, and getting most freefall time out of that optimal glide-slope/angle the 2nd one.

Well for distance, mostly you're talking alot of fabric. Basically trying to "wear" a canopy. Glide slope on the other hand is going to be a bit more about "enhancing" a really good track. You'll probably keep a fair amount of speed.

One thing to consider is that everything from birds to fighter jets, and many planes inbetween, use wings which can have their shape "modified". Simple planes use flaps, the F-14 and the B-1B used swing wings. Birds can change the length,
angle, and curvature of their wings. Right now, with in reason, wingsuits are relatively "fixed". You can change your "span" but the "length" of the surface says the same. Some bungies or "swoop cords" are in your future. (I'm sure there have already been some experiments with them).

The other thing is the dragon fly. They gain extreme lift by interacting with their forward and aft wings. They improve performance by taking the disturbed air off of their front wing and "working" it with their aft wing. There was an forward swept experimental plane that had "vanes" which created "turbulent" air for the wings to leverage for greater maneuverability. The old "stagger wing" biplane did something of this nature, of staggering the wings so that the "forward" wing "fed" the trailing one for greater efficiency. It would seem that there is a potential for interaction between your "wing" and "tail". I suspect this would be especially true for greater "thrust". The wing is currently "turning" the air towards the aft and generating thrust. Having the wing "feed" the tail so that this was a two step process could improve the thrust efficiency of the whole shape.

[mccordia 74]

Quote

Well for distance, mostly you're talking alot of fabric

I think thats only partialy true, some of the bigger suits get lesser glide ratios then slighly smaller ones.

Increased size also means increased drag. I think we've reached the point where suits can not be made much bigger (though probably will) and smart aerofoil design and some new idea's brewing in the closet will be whats needed to continue further on the path of increased flight performance...

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[VectorBoy 0]

I think thats only partialy true, some of the bigger suits get lesser glide ratios then slighly smaller ones.

Increased size also means increased drag. I think we've reached the point where suits can not be made much bigger (though probably will) and smart aerofoil design and some new idea's brewing in the closet will be whats needed to continue further on the path of increased flight performance...

[mccordia 74]

Quote

Jarno I completely agree.

Ive printed this comment and stuck it to my office wall..
Never would have imagined these words coming from you...

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[VectorBoy 0]

Shit, well have this framed. Your last paragraph was gospel!

Along with the extra surface area of the newer suits, and the drag associated with it, there is a huge penalty in forward speed and to a degree in the ability to collapse the wings and descend. Most of these newer suits have larger vents and panels made of materials that create more parasitic drag compared to zp with flush vents in addition to the induced drag of the greater surface area.

[980 0]

Quote

Most of these newer suits have larger vents and panels made of materials that create more parasitic drag compared to zp with flush vents in addition to the induced drag of the greater surface area.

if smoother and smaller surface area was always better, golf balls wouldn't have dimples and shark skin wouldn't be as rough as sandpaper...

[aarthus 0]

Quote

Increased size also means increased drag. I think we've reached the point where suits can not be made much bigger (though probably will) and smart aerofoil design and some new idea's brewing in the closet will be whats needed to continue further on the path of increased flight performance...

totally agree, smart designs !

Patrick de Guillebon

[The111 1]

Quote

I think thats only partialy true, some of the bigger suits get lesser glide ratios then slighly smaller ones.

I used to "think" the same thing... but the thing is that aerodynamics is almost never intuitive... a lot of what's known in the aerodynamic field was figured out experimentally (although of course we have CFD now).

I honestly don't think there are a lot of hard facts known about WS aerodynamics, and in the absence of that knowledge we have to go off of what's been proven. In the distance contests that I'm aware of (thinking of two main ones here) the SM1 and V-2 (both in the hands of skilled pilots) have posted very similar glide ratios (and nobody has bested either of these suits with smaller ones).

One what do you base your opinion that bigger suits glide worse than small ones?

I really don't claim to have any answers here, I'm just observing what I've seen. I think there are still a lot of unknowns in this realm.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[NWPoul 1]

Quote

Increased size also means increased drag.

Why?
Your canopy usually bigger than your wingsuit but provide less drag in sustained flight

Quote

I think we've reached the point where suits can not be made much bigger (though probably will) and smart aerofoil design and some new idea's brewing in the closet will be whats needed to continue further on the path of increased flight performance...

Yep, a better design almost allways better))

Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

[mccordia 74]

Isnt the comparisson you make already a good one?
If you compare a V2 and SM1 there is quite big difference in wingsize (Id guess about 1/3?) yet (fallrate aside) there is no real difference in glide performance.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[The111 1]

Quote

Isnt the comparisson you make already a good one?
If you compare a V2 and SM1 there is quite big difference in wingsize (Id guess about 1/3?) yet (fallrate aside) there is no real difference in glide performance.

My point was that bigger suits don't necessarily get poorer glide ratios, not that they get better glide ratios (if that makes any sense).

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[zipplewrath 1]

Quote

Quote

Well for distance, mostly you're talking alot of fabric

I think thats only partialy true, some of the bigger suits get lesser glide ratios then slighly smaller ones.

Quote

Well, all you are saying is that fabric can be added inefficiently. But you can't deny a canopy gets better glide ratios than you do. You guys haven't reached 7 to 1 or anything have you?

In my mind you guys are going to have a decision to make in the future with respect to rigid, and semi-rigid features. There will almost assuredly be stiffeners and shapers which will enhance performance that don't bend or fold much.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites