what do you consider a "landing"

[arai 0]

okay so I know the forum is filled with a lot of "will they" "wont they" posts about landing wingsuits.

but what do you consider a landing? with current wingsuit fall speeds dropping quite low. I believe its theoretically possible (someone correct me?) that the verticle speeds of a falling wingsuiter would be similar if not slower than say a stuntman when falling onto an airbag from 130 feet.

I know their would be complications from the wingsuiters forward speed, as well as the fact that missing doesnt allow for any reserve pull. I'm just asking, doesnt the verticle speed allow for a wingsuiter to live if he hit an airbag with todays airbag technology? I wonder how big a bag $6000000 buys?


just bored at work

[The111 1]

"Landing" a parachute means the parachute is the only thing that allows you to touch down softly and walk away, rather than impact the ground and die. The parachute is the only speed damping device used (both horizontal and vertical speeds).

As such, "landing" a wingsuit should mean that the wingsuit is the only device you use to slow your speed (in BOTH directions).

Wingsuits don't have wheels, sleds, or air cushions. If you "land" a wingsuit that has been augmented by adding wheels, brakes, sleds, cushions, whatever... you didn't land a wingsuit, you landed some new crazy contraption.

That's obviously MY unique opinion, and it's all semantics anyway. Based on my definition, it is not currently possible to land a wingsuit, nor likely will be anytime soon.

**********

The flipside...

I think what many people are thinking of is not the task of landing a wingsuit, but the task of landing a wingsuit without a parachute. To me, that's not that impressive, because with enough engineering, we could land our BODIES without a parachute. Airbags, bubbly water, whatever other crazy contraption you could think of to slow a really fast wingsuit down, could likewise slow a really fast meat missile (freefaller) down.

If this is what is achieved, the wingsuit had nothing to do with the landing. Although it would, admittedly, be an impressive visual display, I would not say that it constituted a wingsuit landing.

**********

The key difference in semantics here is using the word with vs without.

Landing with (and only with) a wingsuit would be phenomenally impressive, but I can't see how it would be possible (though I'm open to suggestion - the snow slope is the most feasible option but still requires other "devices").

Landing without a parachute doesn't mean anything, because you haven't specified what you will use instead. If you happen to wear a wingsuit while landing in a $6,000,000 decelerating machine, that doesn't constitute a wingsuit landing in my book.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I think what many people are thinking of is not the task of landing a wingsuit, but the task of landing a wingsuit without a parachute. To me, that's not that impressive, because with enough engineering, we could land our BODIES without a parachute. Airbags, bubbly water, whatever other crazy contraption you could think of to slow a really fast wingsuit down, could likewise slow a really fast meat missile (freefaller) down.

Using aerated water may not work either. Check here. I wonder if aerated water would behave the same way. Science discovers the strangest things.

[mariavon 0]

I totally agree that it must be the wingsuit itself that provides the conditions for a safe landing (almost anywhere ) before it can be called a "wingsuit landing ".
For the record, our serious development of a wingsuit that can provide for a normal wingsuit flight and then a safe landing, does not involve landing gear or contraptions and changes to the environment to cushion the "landing " .

(pronounced G - jii is the force that makes you fly!)

Jii-Wings - no strings!

[jeb 0]

This is an interesting discussion. What does a plane with a bad glide angle need to land? Don't they need a runway? Without the proper runway most jets could never touch down or they would crash and burn. Helicopters and harriers are the only aircraft I know of that don't need a run way to land. There are probably a few other types of aircraft that can land without a runway but a wing-suit is not one of them. I wonder how much the average runway costs to make? I wonder how much it would cost to make a runway for a wing-suit? Seeing that the runway has to be so very special for a wing suit I bet it will cost allot...

Jeb

[mariavon 0]

dude ... forget runways of any description or landing gear .. i am saying that with the right design a wingsuit can land on the dirt right in front of the usual blase crowd at the dropzone ok!

thanks anyway .. i need a good dose of the same scepticism that your claims met with .. its a big motivation to succeed, not so?

(pronounced G - jii is the force that makes you fly!)

Jii-Wings - no strings!

[unclecharlie95 3]

This discussion is similar to the age old "Freefall under a drogue is not freefall" (Joe Kittinger and Tandems...)

Regardless of it being a "true" landing or not it will be an incredible human achievement that I am sure all of us would LOVE to see happen
Now if we can just build a runway near a 3000' E we can do take off and landing without aircraft assistance or the hassle of packing!!

BASEstore.it

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

In all seriousness, I would consider the use of some type of wheeled landing gear on a belly mount absolutely neccessary in order to "properly" land a REAL wingsuit. Like you just said, a jet could not fly if it did not have a runway to land on. Ultimately, it comes down to one's ability to flare a suit enough to achieve level (relative) flight, if only for an instant, and then a means to safely bleed off the forward speed once on the ground without dieing. I don't see how anyone could call "foul" at that so long as you are talking about landing on a runway. Why would you need a special runway for that? There are plenty of those around which are not currently in service. Landing on a similar paved surface, only on a fairly steep initial grade, would make that even more logical. I would also not call foul if a person were to land on a speed skiing slope with a set of ski landing gear attached to a belly harness and some means of braking the aparatus upon touchdown. I believe Loic Jean Albert completely capable of that RIGHT NOW if he felt like it. The greater the slope, the less one has to flare the suit. The less one has to flare the suit, the closer to the body the landing gear (whether wheels or skis) can be, thus reducing parasitic drag.

Flying into a net is not "landing"

Landing something with fixed wings is not landing a wingsuit; that's landing a glider and people do that all the time.

A "super sugar glider" or some other enlarged mono-wing might be suitable for a slow-flight "plop down"-type landing on a powder snow slope, but I think a high performance multi-wing design (S3, Vampire, whatever else might come out) with more flare power (but more forward speed) would be what's needed to attempt a wheeled/ski/skid landing on a hard surface (snow or pavement), whether sloped or not.

Chuck Blue
BMCI-4, AFF/SL/TM-I, PRO

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Flying into a net is not "landing"

What about catching a tail hook on an arrestor cable?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

Quote

This discussion is similar to the age old "Freefall under a drogue is not freefall" (Joe Kittinger and Tandems...)

Regardless of it being a "true" landing or not it will be an incredible human achievement that I am sure all of us would LOVE to see happen
Now if we can just build a runway near a 3000' E we can do take off and landing without aircraft assistance or the hassle of packing!!

Personally, I believe that this, under the right circumstances, might already be possible. Anybody ask Loic if he has ever been to a 90m ski jump and tried that sport? Anybody not think it would be totally possible for a trained ski jumper/wingsuiter to ski down the launch slope, hit the take off ramp and fly as far as he wanted so long as the landing hill stayed properly groomed, free of obstacles, and was long enough? This, my friend, is already totally plausible.

Chuck

[unclecharlie95 3]

I can see some airflow interference between suit / skis. But hell I think it would be worth trying

BASEstore.it

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

Quote

Quote

Flying into a net is not "landing"

What about catching a tail hook on an arrestor cable?

Once already on the ground? Totally acceptable. Jets smash into the decks of carriers right at the edge of their suspension's ability to absorb the impact and then are arrested. The only reason they must use such a device though is to keep them from rolling off the forward edge of the landing deck. The key thought here though is that they are already on the ground and rolling before being arrested. They have already landed; they just have not slowed down to a stop yet.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Flying into a net is not "landing"

What about catching a tail hook on an arrestor cable?

Once already on the ground? Totally acceptable.

I was thinking that you could use an arrestor cable in combination with a ski slope, so that you only had to find the right slope, and didn't have to spend a bunch of time/effort/money to find/build the runout upslope on the other side. An arrestor would also minimize the "face slide" time, which would probably be the most dangerous part of the whole deal (assuming the pilot had sufficient skill to make the touchdown).

I tend to agree with you that launching a wingsuit from a ski jump ought to lead to some amazing flight possibilities. Ski jumpers are already pretty much landing at terminal speeds. Wasn't that where Patrick wanted to go with the suits?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

The "face time" (actually "neck snapping") you talk about could be totally avoided with proper standoff for your skis (or skids, assuming downhill sled belly-mount configuration). I think they would need to be about a foot away from your belly and extend from a foot above your head down to around the middle of your thighs. Yes, arrestor cables across a speed skiing hill would absolutely work assuming you had the requisite wingsuit skill-set, the desire to do the landing in the first place, and the balls to commit to the landing. See, that's another thing though. On a slope that steep, if you blew your approach you could simply flare out, get separation from the slope and deploy your parachute.

After that, the REAL stunt would be replicating that landing without a parachute on your back as a backup. THAT truly would be "landing" a wingsuit in the purest form I could imagine.

Chuck

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

This is an interesting discussion. What does a plane with a bad glide angle need to land? Don't they need a runway? Without the proper runway most jets could never touch down or they would crash and burn.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

True!
You can count on one hand the number of jet airliners that have landed, engine-out, off runways and been flown again.
"What does a plane with a bad glide angle need to land?" An ejection seat!
Most military jet fighters have miserable glide angles engine-out. They have such high wing loadings, low aspect ratios and horrific descent rates that they need to generate plenty of thrust on final approach to minimize descent rates.
Heck, even most civilian, twin propeller planes need to generate a significant amount of thrust on final approach to minimize descent rates.
And the primary reason older jet airliners (i.e. Boeing 727) are bing retitred is because they are too loud (generating too much thrust) on FINAL APPROACH.

So landing a wingsuit on an asphalt runway or ski slope is legitimate, but landing it on a giant purpose-built airbag is whimping out because it is too expensive for routine skydiving.

• Quote

[phoenixlpr 0]

How about the SpaceShuttle? It flies like a brick too, it can be landed.

[highfly 0]

What about a massive trench/swoop pond filled with bean bag beans?

Just a thought.

www.myspace.com/durtymac

[riggerrob 643]

What if a wingsuit flyer could find a place with strong, steady anabatic winds to reduce his forward speed?

"Anabatic wind
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

Page 1 of 1



also called upslope wind local air current that blows up a hill or mountain slope facing the Sun. During the day, the Sun heats such a slope (and the air over it) faster than it does the adjacent lowland because the slope's surface is more nearly perpendicular to the Sun's rays. This warming decreases the density of the air, causing it to rise. More air rises from below to replace it, producing a wind. An anabatic wind may attain a velocity of 6 metres per second (about 13 miles per hour)."

While the Encyclopedia Britannica quotes "13 mph" I am sure you can find a narrow mountain valley where venturi effects more than double to speed of anabatic winds.

We should probably start test jumps over California City. The first step would involve watching for the lenticular clouds that show where mountain waves (Yes I know that mountain waves are a different type of wind, but they are good for practice.) occur.

Mountain waves also provide lift which would prolong every lesson by several minutes.

Then do a series of wingsuit flights to prove that you can slow your descent rate to zero (at 5,000' MSL) before taking it any lower.

Just a thought??????

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

winds to reduce his forward speed?

And what about the Oh so important vertical descent rate? You don't have to be going very fast to cause blunt force trauma to your internal organs. Especialy when the parts to potentially touch first are your head and upperchest/torso.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[Jasmin 0]

This has been debated in this forum that many times, have y'all tried using the search function before posting something??!!?!

Y'anyways, I'll repeat myself.

I agree with Dwain Weston's old adage: It doesn't count unless you walk away from it.

But if you reckon survival is all that matters, then Russian Denis has already "landed" a wingsuit.

xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

[The111 1]

Quote

This has been debated in this forum that many times, have y'all tried using the search function before posting something??!!?!

Working in a BirdMan tent at a boogie, I get this question hands down more than any other. That is including questions like "how slow can you go" and "can I fly a wingsuit"?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[F16Driver 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

True!
You can count on one hand the number of jet airliners that have landed, engine-out, off runways and been flown again.
"What does a plane with a bad glide angle need to land?" An ejection seat!
Most military jet fighters have miserable glide angles engine-out. They have such high wing loadings, low aspect ratios and horrific descent rates that they need to generate plenty of thrust on final approach to minimize descent rates.
Heck, even most civilian, twin propeller planes need to generate a significant amount of thrust on final approach to minimize descent rates.
And the primary reason older jet airliners (i.e. Boeing 727) are bing retitred is because they are too loud (generating too much thrust) on FINAL APPROACH.





That's not entirely true on the glide angles. The F-16 can glide at 7 degrees with the engine flamed out. It doesn't "drop out of the sky" like most people think. In fact, one of our currencies we have to keep up on is Simulated Flame Out Patterns. They are not that hard to do at all. I had a pilot friend of mine (civilian pilot) in our simulator and I killed his engine. I talked him through everything and he easily landed it. It is nice to have an ejection seat, in case.

On normal landings, we don't generate horrific amounts of thrust to slow descent rates. My power settings on final are just above idle on approach and idle about 500' from the threshhold. All you do to slow descent rate on any aircraft is to pull back on the stick and maintain the appropriate airspeed. The only time thrust is going to be the primary means of slowing your descent rate is when you are WAY TOO SLOW and your on the backside of the power curve. This is not a good place to be because it means you're "hanging on the thrust". Meaning that thrust your engine or engines are making is the only thing keeping your pink butt in the air. If you lose an engine in this case the plane WILL stall and you better hope you have enough altitude to accelerate to glide speed and recover the aircraft.

As for landing a wingsuit. The designs out now, as discussed before, require a significant amount of forward speed in order to generate enough lift to just level off (i.e. birdman's rocketbird project). If you have the airspeed, you can flare out to level flight. However, as Chuck noted, you better have some way of stopping your butt.

"I promise, I will never die."