mfnren 2 #1 September 26, 2006 any body have any prototypes for rigid or semi rigid wings? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #2 September 26, 2006 there is the Stingray used by Felix there is Yves Rossy's wing www.jet-man.comscissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mfnren 2 #3 September 26, 2006 any pictures of the stingray? Any ideas for something a little more convenient? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #4 September 26, 2006 Most of the people with rigid wings died... Why mess with rigids wings, when soft wings are safer, and, you're flying YOURSELF. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #5 September 26, 2006 Videos: http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=tags&tags=view&tag=rigid%20wing Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #6 September 27, 2006 Quoteany pictures of the stingray? do a search here for stingray, for Felix, for English Channel...scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mfnren 2 #7 September 27, 2006 yeah, why explore more efficient materials, that doesnt make any sense? how would using rigid parts in a wingsuit change that your flying yourself? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funnjumper 0 #8 September 27, 2006 many people died when wingsuits started (72 of the first 75) or have you forgotten already! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #9 September 27, 2006 Quotemany people died when wingsuits started (72 of the first 75) or have you forgotten already! That's what I said right? Those early birds all had variations of rigid wings. Wingsuiting only became "safe" (and allowed again!) with the invention of soft wings. ciel bleu, Saskia 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #10 September 27, 2006 Quoteyeah, why explore more efficient materials, that doesnt make any sense? how would using rigid parts in a wingsuit change that your flying yourself? Pilots fly themselves. For the same reason Felix's record was thrown out by the Guinness book. He fell into the same category as a fixed wing glider. Your skeleton needs to be your airframe if you want to call it a wingsuit. If you want to fly a fixed wing - get a plane. Put an engine on. Do inflight refueling. And don't bother with us mortals exploring the bounds of human flight. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #11 September 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteyeah, why explore more efficient materials, that doesnt make any sense? how would using rigid parts in a wingsuit change that your flying yourself? Pilots fly themselves. For the same reason Felix's record was thrown out by the Guinness book. He fell into the same category as a fixed wing glider. Your skeleton needs to be your airframe if you want to call it a wingsuit. If you want to fly a fixed wing - get a plane. Put an engine on. Do inflight refueling. And don't bother with us mortals exploring the bounds of human flight. t Devil's advocate here, don't wingtip grippers and mylar ribs mean that rigid parts are already encroaching on our current generation of wingsuits? Shouldn't we expect the amount of rigid sections used in wingsuit designs to gradually increase design by design as gains in performance and possibly endurance become apparent? It may be that we will reach a point where an arbitrary line in the sand is drawn with 'soft' on one side and 'rigid' on the other seperated only by a matter of degree.Do you want to have an ideagasm? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mccordia 74 #12 September 27, 2006 QuoteIt may be that we will reach a point where an arbitrary line in the sand is drawn with 'soft' on one side and 'rigid' on the other seperated only by a matter of degree. The VKB G3 would already be quite a nice subject of discussion..with the rig forming a rigid airfoil with the body... But its still an airfoil constructed around a human body. When compared to the channel-crossing glider, that jumper is merely hanging under a wing (which would probably fly better if the jumper wasnt there)JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #13 September 27, 2006 Your skeleton needs to be your airframe if you want to call it a wingsuit. Mylar ribs and wing tip grippers do not change that. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #14 September 27, 2006 Quote Your skeleton needs to be your airframe if you want to call it a wingsuit. Mylar ribs and wing tip grippers do not change that. Yeah absolutely, they're obviously nothing like Skyray/Yves Rossy/Felix. But are they only the beginning, how many more tricks and tweaks and bits of plastic (or even carbonfuckingfibre) are going to come into mainstream wingsuits over the next 3/5/10 years? I don't know, and I'm not saying it will happen - I'm just wondering if it might.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Costyn 1 #15 September 27, 2006 QuoteYour skeleton needs to be your airframe if you want to call it a wingsuit. Dude, that's an excellent line to draw between a wingsuit and not a wingsuit. I like it.Costyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mfnren 2 #16 September 27, 2006 hmmm, I said rigid parts in wings suits. Such as ribs, maybe hard top surfaces? And I get all this hostility about thats not pure wingsuiting? I am not talking about fixed wings on your back, I m talking about the improvement of wingsuits.. And whats with the mortals comment? pretty pretentous for someone who jumps out of a plane,,, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #17 September 27, 2006 Felix. And for the rigid parts, loads of birdman have died already as said before, the soft wings are the evolution of rigid (part or whole) wings, not the other way round. I don't see mylar ribwise as "stiff" as the wing is still totally collapsible. ciel bleu, Saskia 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mfnren 2 #18 September 27, 2006 so why not collapsible rigid or semi rigid wings? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 4 #19 September 27, 2006 The only stiffening in modern wingsuits is chord-wise. There is no span-wise stiffening as that would prevent you from shutting down your wings. Also, none of the stiffening (mylar) in any of the high-end suits on the market hamper a person from flexing his body in any way they deem fit. This, of course, comes at the price of prematurely wearing out the mylar stiffeners currently used. As has already been stated, the term wingsuit indicates that it is still basically a cloth garment; not a rigid wing. The skeleton-as-frame analogy was perfect. I am not quite sure what you meant with your "pretentious" comment towards Tonto. Care to ellaborate? Chuck BMCI-4 (among other things) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mfnren 2 #20 September 27, 2006 sure, I just thought telling me if I wanted to fly with rigid wing (which is not what I meant) go fly a plane and leave the human flight boundaries to wingsuit pilots was a little funny considering we jump out of planes. But anway, I was hoping to get some ideas on creating higher performance wingsuits by using rigid materials in the cuurent design..body as airframe. Integrating them into the design as to not hinder movement or ability to shut the wing down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 4 #21 September 27, 2006 I think we are doing a fantastic job right now. As it is, there are very, very few wingsuiters regularly flying their high-end suits anywhere near their maximum potential. I would really like it if the average forward speed would increase on flocks and, consequently, the vertical speed to decrease. Without that, it's truly pointless to flock in big suits when a Firebird/Phantom/S-fly is fine. I am about to have a smaller Acro-type suit built for day-to-day flocking and cutting up; quite the opposite of what you envision the discipline going to. Chuck 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mfnren 2 #22 September 27, 2006 I don t disagree. the wingsuits aavailable are doing amzing thing with the pilots who are flying them. your right, I am not thinking about flocking , there are many visions of wingsuit flying, and room for all of them. just wanted to explore some of the possibilitys... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #23 September 27, 2006 Quote...quite the opposite of what you envision the discipline going to. I believe Ren is posting here because he's getting weathered out on a Euro-BASE trip. He's probably interested more in maximum glide than in flocking.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 4 #24 September 27, 2006 Fine, then in that case I would simply ask "how much hassle are you willing to deal with at pull time in that environment?" If I were going for that maximum glide and wanting to hum it "Robi low", I think that too much more rigidity than what's being jumped right now would be a real problem. I don't really think there are a lot of BASE wingsuiters out there who are, seriously, in need of "more glide to survive". Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mfnren 2 #25 September 28, 2006 yea , hehe, and seeing all the possiblitys that wingsuits create, amazing.. but wouldnt more glide be desirable skydiving as well?? There probably aren t to many baser that need more glide to survive, how about more glide to out fly 10 ledgesinsted of 5, or lets fly around that knob, rather than pull at the base of it? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
