Wingsuit research

aonsquared

Quote

The solution of these is:

Kl = Vxs/Vs^3
Kd = Vys/Vs^3

With these adjusted coefficients, the wingsuit equations are

dVx/dt = g*V*(Kl*Vy - Kd*Vx)
dVy/dt = g*(1 - V*(Kl*Vx + Kd*Vy))

Now the unknown wingsuit parameters (wingloading mg/S and aerodynamic properties Cl, Cd) are "hidden" inside coefficients Kl and Kd, which can be easily calculated from sustained horizontal and vertical speeds.

Sigh. You treated C_l and C_d as constants. Which means if you use the equations that you used in the beginning:

D = 1/2 rho * V^2* S *C_d

Then yes, setting V to 0 will result in D = 0. Is this why you think the drag polar is invalid? Because of D = qSC_d?

Also, you said in the post:
***We have 2 equations for 3 unknowns (k and Cl, Cd). But note that if we combine k with the Cl and Cd into "adjusted" lift and drag coefficients (no longer nondimensional)

Which is incorrect. k is known - it's 0.5*rho*S/m which is constant (rho = approximately 1.225 kg/m^3). So I'm not sure why you had to condense them to yet another set of coefficients.

It's understandable why D = 0 if V = 0 when you use that equation, but this drag term is not a constant - it's a condensed set of coefficients itself and is itself calculated with another equation. The drag polar was not derived from the equation you started with, which is why you got a different result. The equation you started with has been extremely simplified.

The V in this equation also denotes airspeed, and GPS measurements only measure ground speed.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

Dude, it's not worth the argument. The best we engineers can do is to make sure people don't buy into this guys nonsense. He isn't going to reinvent unpowered flight. He for sure isn't going to reinvent unpowered flight with an infinitely variable wing.

Wingsuit research also (thankfully) spans a much wider field than just max glide.

Agility, Safety/Usability, behavior and stability at other angles than max glide are in most suits of almost bigger importance. All the theorizing is really nice, but looking at wingsuit design (similar to sports parachutes) the glide is not making major leaps anymore. Most of the big steps come from more understanding of dive/flare and retaining energy, and having products that in inflation, maneuverability and fit translate the users intended actions best onto the wing.

These are factors that manufacturers try and test through years of research. Not research done with a calculator. But actual flying. And looking at what people are doing in wingsuits, its there that big steps have been taken (next to just general knowledge, skills and improved teaching). And to anyone actively flying wingsuits, these changes in suits (or even same model, but newer version) are very much noticeable.

Looking at the current wingsuit lineup across all manufacturers, it's the actual aforementioned research that has the biggest effect in the product evolution from version 1,2,3 and onward...

mccordia

Wingsuit research also (thankfully) spans a much wider field than just max glide.

Agility, Safety/Usability, behavior and stability at other angles than max glide are in most suits of almost bigger importance.

While "Agility, Safety/Usability, behavior and stability" are, no doubt, very important for certain types of flying (f1.0cking?), I'm talking about cutting edge. I'm talking Ferrari, not grandma's PT Cruiser or golf cart. A golf cart has a lot of specific features, like very tight turning radius (agility), safety (slow), usability (no doors), and stability (heavy batteries on the bottom and lightweight roof). A lot of research went into designing a golf cart, and it's respectable. But I'm clearly talking about the cutting edge, pushing wingsuits to fly even farther. Or faster. Or longer. (Is anyone even lobbying the idea of using 3 different suits, for each discipline in competitions - speed, distance, time - which will foster the development of interesting - and useful - new designs?)

For some reason, WSMs (WS manufacturers) stopped working on maximizing max L/D somewhere around 2010-ish, when it became clear that T-planform is the winning formula and inlets must be on the bottom surface and scooped. That's it, nothing substantially changed since then. For almost a decade now, max L/D is pegged at about 3.0 (maybe - maybe - some pterodactyl-like pilots wearing superthin/integrated rigs, thin shoes, no or very thin helmet can do 3.1-3.3, but that performance bump is not wingsuit's merit).

mccordia

looking at wingsuit design (similar to sports parachutes) the glide is not making major leaps anymore.

Because WSMs stopped trying. And because they don't use the readily available precise scientific instruments for measurements of aerodynamic parameters. And because they refuse to use even freely available ideas spoon-fed to them on the forums.

I propose to call this passiveness of WSMs in the past 12-20 years (and continuing into the future) CoW - short for "Cow of Wingsuiting":

[inline CoW.gif]

Instead, they all engaged in Godzilla Marketing tactics with fast upgrade cycles (multiple models, upgraded every year each) and marketing speak flashfloods filled with superlatives and piles of BS disguised as chocolate nuggets. It works for them - wingsuits are flying out of the factories like hot pancakes, $1.5-2K each! (They've also raised the prices unilaterally to compensate for the new players on the market taking their slice of the pie.)

mccordia

Most of the big steps come from more understanding of dive/flare and retaining energy

This clearly shows lack of understanding where the better dive/flare came from. It didn't come from the genius WS designer's brain, from enormous effort of creating new revolutionary designs... it came automagically with the increased L/D (from mid-2's to 3.0) - which, in turn, is a result of a mere surface area increase - and from better ability of T-planform, compared to classic split arm&leg wings planform, to change the pitching momentum at will. (And T-planform was found by random trial and error, throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.)

This diagram posted a decade ago:

[inline 3.567.gif]

is a polar graph of current horizontal and vertical speeds after a BASE exit, in constant flight configuration (mode), for various L/D's, from 0.5 to 3.567. It clearly shows the dramatic effect that increasing L/D has on gaining more kinetic energy in a dive and retaining it longer and converting it to potential energy more efficiently. (Note that this is not even a flare, this is a natural planeout after BASE exit. Real flare differences are even more dramatic.)

Let me make this analogy. L/D is very much like an inverse of coefficient of friction - the lower the friction, the higher L/D. Why? Because if you consider a force diagram of 1) a wingsuit and 2) an object sliding on inclined surface - they're identical! We have weight, then in 1) we have lift L perpendicular to the line of travel and in 2) we have normal force N perpendicular to the surface; and in 1) we have drag D parallel to the line of travel and in 2) we have friction force F parallel to the surface. In 1), we call the ratio L over D as a number (L/D), which is a measure of wingsuit's aerodynamic finesse. In 2), we call the ratio F/N as a number (k) - coefficient of friction. So, by this analogy, (L/D) = 1/k.

We know that for object to slide on an incline, the tangent of the angle to horizon must be equal or greater than k. For example, if k = 1/3, then the angle is arctan(1/3)=18.4 deg. This is the same angle as a sustained glide angle for a wingsuit with L/D = 3.0!

So, imagine riding a skateboard in a skate park. With a good skateboard with low friction, you can gain more speed going down an incline and retain this energy longer for going up on various tricks. A rusty skateboard will gain lower speed and will stop going up much faster. Same with wingsuits, really.

These two factors - amount of speed gained in a dive and the more efficient conversion of it into gained altitude - are multiplied and as a result, flare is quite sensitive to increasing L/D ( = decreasing k). That's why a relatively small (50% from wingsuits of early 2000's or 25% from 2005-ish) increase in L/D resulted in massive improvement of dive and flare. Plus, the T-planform advantage in pitch control, which was copied by every other WSM.

mccordia

These are factors that manufacturers try and test through years of research. Not research done with a calculator. But actual flying.

Why don't WSMs show the exact changes of this "research by flying"? Before/after. And did they quantify the before/after change? Or it's just marketing blah-blah-blah?

Why didn't WSM's try various ideas offered to them for free on the forums?

The non-zero angle of incidence for both arm and leg wings? ("superterminal wingsuit", link in OP) I tried it ca. 2007-8 with the arm wings on my Phantom-1 and Vampire-2, it was promising, but I couldn't quantify it, because at the time I didn't have the instrumentation. I did it by sewing a second set of tabs going from armpits towards crotch, not along the sides (which is zero AoI). This is only possible with planform designs of old wingsuits with separate arm and leg wings, and for the leg wing, it requires Vampire-style leg wing with its own leading edge.

Because... CoW
[inline CoW.gif]

Half-windgsuit with leg wing only? I tried it many times, starting with flying just the pants of my Prodigy back in 2005-6 and the advantages in speed were obvious. Also, eventually cut both P-1 and V-2 in half and flew the leg wings. Also, cut my V-4's arm wings completely after the zippers broke, and flew it like a Superman, with arm(s) stretched forward. Flew it in Eloy, Perris, San Diego, Lodi - no one is interested. I'm sure if some WSM made such a half-WS, people will say, "wow, this is awesome, the speed is just ludicrous!" (it also naturally puts L/D close to 1.4 - the optimal for max horizontal speed)

Because... CoW
[inline CoW.gif]

Why no WSM is using real wingsuit instrumentation, not just GPS/Flysight which can't determine aerodynamic parameters?

Because... CoW
[inline CoW.gif]

The list of ignored ideas is very long and this post is already long, so I'll stop for now. It's hopeless anyway, as I learned over the past 12 years. The Solar System - at least in WS innovation sense - is a very lonely place, it turns out.

yuri_base

And because they refuse to use even freely available ideas spoon-fed to them on the forums.

So ungrateful, aren't they? all they need to do is design, test, build, iterate, market, deliver and support the suits! You've already done all the work

yuri_base

(They've also raised the prices unilaterally to compensate for the new players on the market taking their slice of the pie.)

That's not usually how competition affects prices...

Quote

It's hopeless anyway, as I learned over the past 12 years.

If you're right, why don't you just build one for yourself and set records in speed, etc? If that happens I'm sure people will pay attention. Even better, start your own wingsuit company!

yuri_base

***Wingsuit research also (thankfully) spans a much wider field than just max glide.

Agility, Safety/Usability, behavior and stability at other angles than max glide are in most suits of almost bigger importance.

While "Agility, Safety/Usability, behavior and stability" are, no doubt, very important for certain types of flying (f1.0cking?), I'm talking about cutting edge. I'm talking Ferrari, not grandma's PT Cruiser or golf cart. A golf cart has a lot of specific features, like very tight turning radius (agility), safety (slow), usability (no doors), and stability (heavy batteries on the bottom and lightweight roof). A lot of research went into designing a golf cart, and it's respectable. But I'm clearly talking about the cutting edge, pushing wingsuits to fly even farther. Or faster. Or longer. (Is anyone even lobbying the idea of using 3 different suits, for each discipline in competitions - speed, distance, time - which will foster the development of interesting - and useful - new designs?)

For some reason, WSMs (WS manufacturers) stopped working on maximizing max L/D somewhere around 2010-ish, when it became clear that T-planform is the winning formula and inlets must be on the bottom surface and scooped. That's it, nothing substantially changed since then. For almost a decade now, max L/D is pegged at about 3.0 (maybe - maybe - some pterodactyl-like pilots wearing superthin/integrated rigs, thin shoes, no or very thin helmet can do 3.1-3.3, but that performance bump is not wingsuit's merit).

mccordia

looking at wingsuit design (similar to sports parachutes) the glide is not making major leaps anymore.

Because WSMs stopped trying. And because they don't use the readily available precise scientific instruments for measurements of aerodynamic parameters. And because they refuse to use even freely available ideas spoon-fed to them on the forums.

I propose to call this passiveness of WSMs in the past 12-20 years (and continuing into the future) CoW - short for "Cow of Wingsuiting":



Instead, they all engaged in Godzilla Marketing tactics with fast upgrade cycles (multiple models, upgraded every year each) and marketing speak flashfloods filled with superlatives and piles of BS disguised as chocolate nuggets. It works for them - wingsuits are flying out of the factories like hot pancakes, $1.5-2K each! (They've also raised the prices unilaterally to compensate for the new players on the market taking their slice of the pie.)

mccordia

Most of the big steps come from more understanding of dive/flare and retaining energy

This clearly shows lack of understanding where the better dive/flare came from. It didn't come from the genius WS designer's brain, from enormous effort of creating new revolutionary designs... it came automagically with the increased L/D (from mid-2's to 3.0) - which, in turn, is a result of a mere surface area increase - and from better ability of T-planform, compared to classic split arm&leg wings planform, to change the pitching momentum at will. (And T-planform was found by random trial and error, throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.)

This diagram posted a decade ago:



is a polar graph of current horizontal and vertical speeds after a BASE exit, in constant flight configuration (mode), for various L/D's, from 0.5 to 3.567. It clearly shows the dramatic effect that increasing L/D has on gaining more kinetic energy in a dive and retaining it longer and converting it to potential energy more efficiently. (Note that this is not even a flare, this is a natural planeout after BASE exit. Real flare differences are even more dramatic.)

Let me make this analogy. L/D is very much like an inverse of coefficient of friction - the lower the friction, the higher L/D. Why? Because if you consider a force diagram of 1) a wingsuit and 2) an object sliding on inclined surface - they're identical! We have weight, then in 1) we have lift L perpendicular to the line of travel and in 2) we have normal force N perpendicular to the surface; and in 1) we have drag D parallel to the line of travel and in 2) we have friction force F parallel to the surface. In 1), we call the ratio L over D as a number (L/D), which is a measure of wingsuit's aerodynamic finesse. In 2), we call the ratio F/N as a number (k) - coefficient of friction. So, by this analogy, (L/D) = 1/k.

We know that for object to slide on an incline, the tangent of the angle to horizon must be equal or greater than k. For example, if k = 1/3, then the angle is arctan(1/3)=18.4 deg. This is the same angle as a sustained glide angle for a wingsuit with L/D = 3.0!

So, imagine riding a skateboard in a skate park. With a good skateboard with low friction, you can gain more speed going down an incline and retain this energy longer for going up on various tricks. A rusty skateboard will gain lower speed and will stop going up much faster. Same with wingsuits, really.

These two factors - amount of speed gained in a dive and the more efficient conversion of it into gained altitude - are multiplied and as a result, flare is quite sensitive to increasing L/D ( = decreasing k). That's why a relatively small (50% from wingsuits of early 2000's or 25% from 2005-ish) increase in L/D resulted in massive improvement of dive and flare. Plus, the T-planform advantage in pitch control, which was copied by every other WSM.

mccordia

These are factors that manufacturers try and test through years of research. Not research done with a calculator. But actual flying.

Why don't WSMs show the exact changes of this "research by flying"? Before/after. And did they quantify the before/after change? Or it's just marketing blah-blah-blah?

Why didn't WSM's try various ideas offered to them for free on the forums?

The non-zero angle of incidence for both arm and leg wings? ("superterminal wingsuit", link in OP) I tried it ca. 2007-8 with the arm wings on my Phantom-1 and Vampire-2, it was promising, but I couldn't quantify it, because at the time I didn't have the instrumentation. I did it by sewing a second set of tabs going from armpits towards crotch, not along the sides (which is zero AoI). This is only possible with planform designs of old wingsuits with separate arm and leg wings, and for the leg wing, it requires Vampire-style leg wing with its own leading edge.

Because... CoW


Half-windgsuit with leg wing only? I tried it many times, starting with flying just the pants of my Prodigy back in 2005-6 and the advantages in speed were obvious. Also, eventually cut both P-1 and V-2 in half and flew the leg wings. Also, cut my V-4's arm wings completely after the zippers broke, and flew it like a Superman, with arm(s) stretched forward. Flew it in Eloy, Perris, San Diego, Lodi - no one is interested. I'm sure if some WSM made such a half-WS, people will say, "wow, this is awesome, the speed is just ludicrous!" (it also naturally puts L/D close to 1.4 - the optimal for max horizontal speed)

Because... CoW


Why no WSM is using real wingsuit instrumentation, not just GPS/Flysight which can't determine aerodynamic parameters?

Because... CoW


The list of ignored ideas is very long and this post is already long, so I'll stop for now. It's hopeless anyway, as I learned over the past 12 years. The Solar System - at least in WS innovation sense - is a very lonely place, it turns out.

You are so full of shit, explaining why would be like talking to a brick wall. When you come up with something real, revolution, and can prove it, come back and I'm sure people will listen. For now you seem like an old man yelling at a cloud.

aonsquared

Even better, start your own wingsuit company!

Not interested in making physical products. I sell electrons.

Then just build one prototype and prove all the naysayers wrong by setting records. Can you?

yuri_base

***Even better, start your own wingsuit company!

Not interested in making physical products. I sell electrons.

And I think there's where your challenge is. Even if you are perfectly correct in all of this, without actual performance in the form of suits, to many people who are still reading this forum - and there aren't many of us left - this is all just math-sturbation. (Some of which, you've been saying for almost 10 years now.)

So, why not partner with one of the manufacturers? I don't mean the Big Three, I mean maybe one of the smaller ones that don't get as much play - and put your models to a rigorous empirical test.

aonsquared

Then just build one prototype and prove all the naysayers wrong by setting records. Can you?

Quote

The non-zero angle of incidence for both arm and leg wings? ("superterminal wingsuit", link in OP) I tried it ca. 2007-8 with the arm wings on my Phantom-1 and Vampire-2, it was promising, but I couldn't quantify it, because at the time I didn't have the instrumentation. I did it by sewing a second set of tabs going from armpits towards crotch, not along the sides (which is zero AoI).

Quote

Half-windgsuit with leg wing only? I tried it many times, starting with flying just the pants of my Prodigy back in 2005-6 and the advantages in speed were obvious. Also, eventually cut both P-1 and V-2 in half and flew the leg wings. Also, cut my V-4's arm wings completely after the zippers broke, and flew it like a Superman, with arm(s) stretched forward. Flew it in Eloy, Perris, San Diego, Lodi - no one is interested.

I also used children's "sausage" balloons, inflated bike inner tube folded in half, or pool noodles to improve leading edge shape on my Phantom-1 in 2005 - this was seen by Jeff N from TS and then WSMs started making leading edge inserts. Also, my experiments with trim (jumped with up to 5kg steel weights on my ankles in P-1 and then V-2, ca. 2005-2006) showed that trim is very important, and finally, ~3 years later, this thought "clicked" in WSM's brains. (many wingsuits of that era were too front-"heavy", too much arm wing relative to leg wing, e.g. Mach-1)

So, some of my work did make it into modern wingsuits.

And I've done, perhaps, close to 100 test jumps with various instrumentation - Z-Device, Analog L/D Meter, L/D Magic, L/D Vario, these are just several examples:

https://vimeo.com/pureflyingmagic

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFaKavzIFhlKuFp40l4osIQ

(many of these jumps were with external GPS units sending data to L/D Magic via Bluetooth - no vane on those)

I'm not a 1000-armed Buddha to do everything myself.

[inline 1000arms.jpg]

I also won't ever participate in competitions since it's unthinkable to my dignity to be a gladiator - food for lions, puppet for the show. I don't have to prove anything to anyone.

However, it remains a great show to watch The Three Stooges continue to be clueless for decades!

[inline 3Stooges.jpg]

Skwrl

Even if you are perfectly correct in all of this, without actual performance in the form of suits, to many people who are still reading this forum - and there aren't many of us left - this is all just math-sturbation. (Some of which, you've been saying for almost 10 years now.)

So, why not partner with one of the manufacturers? I don't mean the Big Three, I mean maybe one of the smaller ones that don't get as much play - and put your models to a rigorous empirical test.

Not interested. Skydiving and BASE are just my hobbies. I put my ideas and software "out there in the wild" (i.e. here and some other similar forums, I'm not on social media and never will). If no one is interested, not my problem.

I feel absolutely no burden, no obligation to anyone to prove anything.

The ideas and software I make have value for themselves, once released in the open, they have their own life. No one interested? Fine, at least, they are just electrons, no need to store them in warehouse like physical products and sell under their value.

Ideas are very hot these days in almost all areas of technology - propose some idea somewhere on the internet - and next day there will be 10 startups making it a reality. Not in the world of wingsuits. There it remains... CoW.

yuri_base

***Even if you are perfectly correct in all of this, without actual performance in the form of suits, to many people who are still reading this forum - and there aren't many of us left - this is all just math-sturbation. (Some of which, you've been saying for almost 10 years now.)

So, why not partner with one of the manufacturers? I don't mean the Big Three, I mean maybe one of the smaller ones that don't get as much play - and put your models to a rigorous empirical test.

Not interested. Skydiving and BASE are just my hobbies. I put my ideas and software "out there in the wild" (i.e. here and some other similar forums, I'm not on social media and never will). If no one is interested, not my problem.

I feel absolutely no burden, no obligation to anyone to prove anything.

The ideas and software I make have value for themselves, once released in the open, they have their own life. No one interested? Fine, at least, they are just electrons, no need to store them in warehouse like physical products and sell under their value.

Ideas are very hot these days in almost all areas of technology - propose some idea somewhere on the internet - and next day there will be 10 startups making it a reality. Not in the world of wingsuits. There it remains... CoW.

I don't have to prove anything to anyone. Literally not how science works, the burden of proof is on you.

Also I called this one, just trying to sell your app using aggressive marketing.

yuri_base

***Then just build one prototype and prove all the naysayers wrong by setting records. Can you?

Quote

The non-zero angle of incidence for both arm and leg wings? ("superterminal wingsuit", link in OP) I tried it ca. 2007-8 with the arm wings on my Phantom-1 and Vampire-2, it was promising, but I couldn't quantify it, because at the time I didn't have the instrumentation. I did it by sewing a second set of tabs going from armpits towards crotch, not along the sides (which is zero AoI).

Quote

Half-windgsuit with leg wing only? I tried it many times, starting with flying just the pants of my Prodigy back in 2005-6 and the advantages in speed were obvious. Also, eventually cut both P-1 and V-2 in half and flew the leg wings. Also, cut my V-4's arm wings completely after the zippers broke, and flew it like a Superman, with arm(s) stretched forward. Flew it in Eloy, Perris, San Diego, Lodi - no one is interested.

Those aren't records as far as I know. Put a flysight on and prove you can fly faster than anyone else.

Quote

I also won't ever participate in competitions since it's unthinkable to my dignity to be a gladiator - food for lions, puppet for the show. I don't have to prove anything to anyone.

I think it's because you'll probably lose.

well thank you for putting a pool noodle in your suit. You definitely pushed it to the next seemingly unreachable level of human unpowered flight.

Sarcasm and shitty comment aside. Sorry for that back there.

What’s your end game here if you don’t intend to proof anything or have an idea that will make an impact?

This is great. I haven't seen Yuri this excited since Dean Potter flew from the Eiger to Grindelwald.

As for Yuri's end game, he has made that pretty clear. He wants wingsuit designers to use a more scientific approach to design, including proper testing instrumentation. He's been around for along time, so I think he has given up on trying to persuade the people in charge of that, and is left with just posting here.

SethInMI

He wants wingsuit designers to use a more scientific approach to design, including proper testing instrumentation.

I have no idea if wingsuit designers use a scientific approach to design. It would be better if they did, I agree. But Yuri's approach is not scientific and there are many flaws with his methods, not to mention the conclusions he reached.

SethInMI

and is left with just posting here.

throwing insults and calling wingsuit manufacturers names because they don't implement his (unproven) ideas is not very scientific...it's immature.

aonsquared

***He wants wingsuit designers to use a more scientific approach to design, including proper testing instrumentation.

I have no idea if wingsuit designers use a scientific approach to design. It would be better if they did, I agree. But Yuri's approach is not scientific and there are many flaws with his methods, not to mention the conclusions he reached.

SethInMI

and is left with just posting here.

throwing insults and calling wingsuit manufacturers names because they don't implement his (unproven) ideas is not very scientific...it's immature.

Wingsuit manufactures do use science to design their suits. His entire premise is wrong. That's why he is laughable on this topic.

It's even worse than that. Even if the wingsuit manufacturers didn't use scientific methods to design their suits (and I think they do), they've achieved much more than he has. His failure stands independent of whatever methods they use.

And he's just blaming most of the skydiving community for not accepting his genius. What I find laughable is his excuses for not providing proof.

Manufacturers has educated or at least very knowledgeable Aerodynamic Engineers to create the suits. They also use math and stuff. Test pilots with xx-thousands jumps are then flying an array of prototypes providing feedback to the engineers that then provides modified prototypes - iteratively improving the suits.

What Yuri says about glide ratio 3:1 is not true at all. The best competition pilots are able to do 4:1 and THAT is proven in the field actually by raw data, not by only talking about formulars. Where? At world championships for years. Because some distance runs in these comp's are not done in downwind, but in crosswind well more or less (now the math genius attacks). I have noticed that 4:1 is achievable but off course that is not proof to math genius.

SethInMI

This is great. I haven't seen Yuri this excited since Dean Potter flew from the Eiger to Grindelwald.

As for Yuri's end game, he has made that pretty clear. He wants wingsuit designers to use a more scientific approach to design, including proper testing instrumentation. He's been around for along time, so I think he has given up on trying to persuade the people in charge of that, and is left with just posting here.

Yeah, I haven't made a post in this forum in 8.5 years, since Feb 2010. Dropped by to see if the new generation of wingsuiters would be interested in some old ideas and theories they haven't seen, critical and honest evaluation of WS progress in the past 12-20 years, as well as relatively new and not widely known wingsuit-specific software and instrumentation I developed in the past 5-10 years.

While I'm not surprised that those old timers who were generating nothing but noise back 12 years ago (which everyone can see themselves by reading links to my old posts in OP), haven't changed - I'm disappointed that the new generation is absolutely the same. This, unfortunately, only confirms that the wingsuiting is still staying in the state of CoW.

My goal was and is and will be to further the wingsuiting by sharing freely my ideas, calculations, software, and critique to nudge the WS R&D - either hopefully by major WSMs, or maybe some creative spirit who likes some idea and makes it a product. Unfortunately, due to CoW, this has failed so far, with no foreseeable change in the near future.

My main interests still remain in the area of wingsuit dynamics research, via physics and software. I've got, in meme speak, over 9000 ideas in this area still waiting their time. I'll continue working on them. It's also the area where (unfortunately - "thanks" to CoW) I have no competition and inspiration from others' work (since it's nonexistent).

I have no interest in creating physical products or proving anything by winning the competitions. (I just don't give a fuck, seriously.) If anyone is interested in applying scientific methods to competitions, wingsuit design, instrumentation, etc. - post on this forum. (The info and tools I generate based on these discussions will always be public; no "secret coaching".) If anyone wants to start a new WS company and make some innovative products like "superterminal wingsuit", "half-wingsuit (Superman)", wingsuit instrumentation - go ahead, just do it! (Man, I can't wait!) Post on this forum and I'll provide my input as best as I can.

By watching WSMs do precisely nothing new and perpetually staying in the state of CoW, swallowing all their marketing BS - we're just wasting our lifetimes. We could have seen so much more in the past 20 years since the beginning of commercial wingsuiting in 1998. If WSMs responded positively (not with immediate rejection and aggression, even bullying) to nudging, critique, freely shared ideas; if they actually used real instrumentation, created for them, to quantify various improvements, instead of feeding us all this marketing BS; if their goal was, too, to maximize their lifetime of being a WSM, use every bit of it to actually take wingsuiting to the next level, not do the "same old, same old" routine - man, I can't even fathom what kind of wingsuits and performance and instruments we would have today!

I think it's obvious now that all faith in "old WSM farts" is gone now, they have a proven record of perpetual CoW and 3-stooging. My only hope, in terms of physical products, remains on yet-to-be-born new generation of WSMs.

yuri_base

***This is great. I haven't seen Yuri this excited since Dean Potter flew from the Eiger to Grindelwald.

As for Yuri's end game, he has made that pretty clear. He wants wingsuit designers to use a more scientific approach to design, including proper testing instrumentation. He's been around for along time, so I think he has given up on trying to persuade the people in charge of that, and is left with just posting here.

Yeah, I haven't made a post in this forum in 8.5 years, since Feb 2010. Dropped by to see if the new generation of wingsuiters would be interested in some old ideas and theories they haven't seen, critical and honest evaluation of WS progress in the past 12-20 years, as well as relatively new and not widely known wingsuit-specific software and instrumentation I developed in the past 5-10 years.

While I'm not surprised that those old timers who were generating nothing but noise back 12 years ago (which everyone can see themselves by reading links to my old posts in OP), haven't changed - I'm disappointed that the new generation is absolutely the same. This, unfortunately, only confirms that the wingsuiting is still staying in the state of CoW.

My goal was and is and will be to further the wingsuiting by sharing freely my ideas, calculations, software, and critique to nudge the WS R&D - either hopefully by major WSMs, or maybe some creative spirit who likes some idea and makes it a product. Unfortunately, due to CoW, this has failed so far, with no foreseeable change in the near future.

My main interests still remain in the area of wingsuit dynamics research, via physics and software. I've got, in meme speak, over 9000 ideas in this area still waiting their time. I'll continue working on them. It's also the area where (unfortunately - "thanks" to CoW) I have no competition and inspiration from others' work (since it's nonexistent).

I have no interest in creating physical products or proving anything by winning the competitions. (I just don't give a fuck, seriously.) If anyone is interested in applying scientific methods to competitions, wingsuit design, instrumentation, etc. - post on this forum. (The info and tools I generate based on these discussions will always be public; no "secret coaching".) If anyone wants to start a new WS company and make some innovative products like "superterminal wingsuit", "half-wingsuit (Superman)", wingsuit instrumentation - go ahead, just do it! (Man, I can't wait!) Post on this forum and I'll provide my input as best as I can.

By watching WSMs do precisely nothing new and perpetually staying in the state of CoW, swallowing all their marketing BS - we're just wasting our lifetimes. We could have seen so much more in the past 20 years since the beginning of commercial wingsuiting in 1998. If WSMs responded positively (not with immediate rejection and aggression, even bullying) to nudging, critique, freely shared ideas; if they actually used real instrumentation, created for them, to quantify various improvements, instead of feeding us all this marketing BS; if their goal was, too, to maximize their lifetime of being a WSM, use every bit of it to actually take wingsuiting to the next level, not do the "same old, same old" routine - man, I can't even fathom what kind of wingsuits and performance and instruments we would have today!

I think it's obvious now that all faith in "old WSM farts" is gone now, they have a proven record of perpetual CoW and 3-stooging. My only hope, in terms of physical products, remains on yet-to-be-born new generation of WSMs.

You are so full of shit. You probably didn't expect to run into an aerospace engineer and a mechanical engineer in here that know more about the mechanics of flight and airfoil design than yourself.

Let me ask you one very important question. What is the biggest limiting factor to the improvement of wingsuit performance?

Yuri -

Why all the focus on marketing and lack of innovation? What industry doesn't do marketing BS. Wingsuit marketing is so tame in comparison. Most industries are also stale with minor incremental improvements year over year.

There are very few industries that are not stagnant. Todays cars are just 100 years of incremental improvements. Significant advances with cars is more in autopilot and electric vehicles not speed. Cell phones make minor changes every year but hold huge marketing events for them.

Wingsuits are a small niche market within an already small market of skydiving. Most people are enthusiasts happy with their Freak 2 or whatever for having fun with friends. Just like most people buy a simple sedan for a car and not a Ferrari. Both get trickle down technology from the high end products though.

So for tiny companies, I think wingsuits are actually making some pretty good advancements. Their budgets don't allow for hundreds of engineers or years of R&D focusing on radical changes. Incremental changes are what is likely to happen unless someone comes up with something radical and I don't think your equations or sensors are going to do that.

birdynamnam

The best competition pilots are able to do 4:1 and THAT is proven in the field actually by raw data, not by only talking about formulars. Where? At world championships for years. Because some distance runs in these comp's are not done in downwind, but in crosswind well more or less (now the math genius attacks). I have noticed that 4:1 is achievable but off course that is not proof to math genius.

Disagree. Performance comps are all about the setup dive and energy management (aka- long slow flare). Also really hard to say with any certainty the effect of the winds. Based on all the data I've seen, and I've seen a lot, I think wingsuits are BARELY above 3:1 L/D.

Yuri, I'm totally with you on taking a more scientific approach to wingsuiting, but your approach is probably not helping your cause.

Anyway, what are your concrete suggestions to WS manufacturers? If you had a factory for a day what would you build?

Proper aerodynamic instrumentation would be great, because GPS is useless when comparing between different skydives. But does it offer anything over flying next to someone? My understanding is that WS manufacturers do iterative development by flying next to people they fly with all the time, and see what effects are of suit changes. By flying relative to another person, the wind effects are irrelevant, and you can see if you can edge ahead of them, or out float them.

Based on your models, do you think we should be working more on increasing lift (surface area)? Or more work on decreasing drag? How do the wingsuit equations help inform which changes to try?

kat00

So for tiny companies, I think wingsuits are actually making some pretty good advancements. Their budgets don't allow for hundreds of engineers or years of R&D focusing on radical changes. Incremental changes are what is likely to happen unless someone comes up with something radical and I don't think your equations or sensors are going to do that.

I think this hits the nail on the head. And since when is "trial and error" not scientific? There was plenty of science being done way before we had pretty line graphs and Flysights.

platypii

Based on your models, do you think we should be working more on increasing lift (surface area)? Or more work on decreasing drag? How do the wingsuit equations help inform which changes to try?

Unfortunately, the so-called "wingsuit equations" are wrong. However, doing both (increasing lift and decreasing drag) will help winguit performance.

Yuri claims that standard aerodynamic equations don't apply to unpowered gliding flight, but some of the best research has been done by NASA in the 1960s for lifting bodies which have glide ratios close to wingsuiters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_M2-F1

Unpowered aircraft have been around for even longer than powered aircraft. The NASA M2-F1 didn't even have any engines - if the only reason the drag polar is not applicable to wingsuiters is the presence of an engine, then NASA should have noticed very quickly. But they completed 77 test flights, and did 16 more flights with the M2-F2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_M2-F2