The111

I went to a couple different riggers asking for a spare RSL shackle thinking it would be some cheap hardware they had lying around... each one said they'd have to special order one for like $30. So instead I went with a quick link... you can find them at any hardware store for cheap. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The idea is very cool, and probably possible, but make sure you don't ever get your priorities out of order: Priority 1: landing safely Priority 2: flying the wingsuit A system which almost never flies correctly but always gets the pilot to the ground is far better than a system which always flies correctly, but every once in a while, causes a fatal malfunction. Also, I'd think whoever tests this out would need to be really experienced, since it can only be classified as an experimental system. Even after you find the perfect test pilot and he's jumped it a lot, I'd still say it would be considered an exceptional skydive for anyone else qualified to jump it. It should be able to be flown without the wingsuit, and done so many times before being attempted with an RW suit, then a tracking suit, then a Classic, etc. And I hate even having to say this, but in today's world, I'd get a really good waiver from whoever jumps the system you design. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Then try jumping from an airplane without your parachuting technology. I can see both sides here... just playing devil's advocate. ALL of us are disabled in the sky. None of us can fly without our gear. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Unless your name is Mario... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I will caveat this: for the short range "burst" competitions measured by GPS as Jarno references, the technique could indeed help. However I am not sure I trust the measurement devices enough for those types of contests (it is basically a swooping contest two miles high with no real visible way to verify what is happening). www.WingsuitPhotos.com

No, it is not impossible, and that should not come as a surprise. What you've just described is the basis for canopy swooping. No, that is not possible. Because you have to also consider what happens outside of the window (when I say window, I mean the part of the flight that briefly precedes and follows the stall). In other words, you have to consider all 3 stages you described above (dive/flare/stall). In the long term, steady state flight has better performance. When you are flying your canopy back to the DZ after a long spot, do you do repeated swoops to cover more distance? No, of course not (at least, I hope not). However... you can do ONE swoop and go further temporarily (in an arbitrary vertical window) than you would have without doing that swoop. But in the end it will cost you overall ground covered (something not obvious at ground level swooping because the flight always ends after that swoop). www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Unless the guy throwing it is like 40ft tall, how else would it be able to cross such a distance, other than flying a profile similar to the one it did? This is a totally dynamic situation (like a swoop, as Jarno says), not really comparable to wingsuit flight... unless of course your goal is to cross a certain horizontal distance within a certain vertical distance, which would all be nearly impossible to accurately measure, and a puzzling goal moreover. This type of flight profile would be of no use for the traditional wingsuit skydiving performance goals of max time, min speed, or max distance. Even for something like proximity flight where short term GR does matter, this would only be useful if the cliff dropped off completely after the end of your short term glide (because you would exit that section with a very bad flight profile), but more importantly it goes against the current proximity standards (flying well below the suit's potential) and would be ridiculously risky. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

My advice: please ignore all the bickering in this thread. Both sides of the argument have a valid point, and there are also people on both sides with their own interests at heart (some more blatant than others). But the most important fact here is that your situation is a bit unique because of your extended trip coming up, and for a trip like that, it certainly would be nice to have a suit that (a) fits and (b) you can use as long as you want without paying rental fees, etc. If you could try a bunch of suits in one week and then buy one of them the next week (custom sized and the way you want it) then that would obviously be the best choice. Since that's not possible, your plan sounds like a pretty good compromise. I doubt you'll ever regret buying a P2/3, but I also doubt it will be the only wingsuit you'll ever buy. Truth be told, you'll have enough basic skills to work on for your first 100 jumps that it won't really matter what suit you're flying as long as it's suitable for a beginner. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

+1 www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I'll never get rid of my S3. Too much emotional attachment. I've sold plenty of newer and older suits. But the S3 stays, even if I never fly it again.

Flying wingsuits are my favorite kind. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Lake Wales IS a long way from Altamonte Springs. The second video, which hardly shows anything as far as I can tell, was supposedly taken in Altamonte Springs. Whatever the guy saw, maybe it wasn't the CRW. Could you really see a flare (or whatever the jumpers used) from 60+ miles away in a populated area with lights everywhere? Just the geometry involved says that at 60 miles horizontally, something 2 miles high would barely be above the horizon. Still funny though. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

It is quite odd that someone who hides his own experience in his profile would question/attack the experience of someone who doesn't hide his. However, since I may not have been flying for long enough to give you any good response, please see Jeff's post above. I am certain he has been flying long enough to know what he states, and he makes the same point I would have. I would not suggest a large suit to someone who is worried about being able to fly straight while pulling. But maybe my opinion will change once I've been jumping longer. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Crazy idea, but you may also consider stopping your turn before pitching. I think that might work! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

EASILY. Yeah, I'd think it easy too. I'd bet you could practically reach that speed on just double fronts. I could be way off, but I'll bet steady state descent is close to 15mph, at least. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I can't remember for sure but I think it was 2006 or 2007. A wingsuit jumper, friend of mine, hit her head/neck on the tail of Sebastian's Caravan (300-400 jumps I believe), probably flying a Phantom or something equal in size. Outcome was a dented tail and a sore neck. All parties involved there were extremely lucky. Add that to your sheet if you want. It will be hard to get an accurate record of the past, as there are no doubt all sorts of reports missing, but hopefully it will be easier to keep your DB up to date real time. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

define normal ? I like my 9ft bridle, my 36'' F111 PC, and my MagBag Exactly. Normal is different with every rig. As I've posted before, a new rig from a popular vendor once left me with a SIX foot bridle ("normal" on their rigs) that gave me hesitations with suits much smaller than an X2. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

With the exception of camera flying (to an extent), none of those other examples require gear which is so specialized and non-trivial that it can kill you if used (or even just rigged) incorrectly. True story: I once caught a very well-known jumper on an airplane with his wing cable routed through his reserve D handle. I think a similar case could be made for camera flying, though maybe not quite as strong. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Gems like these are what keep me coming back to this thread. After you finish Brian Germain's book, here is another one that might help: http://goo.gl/yjiFR www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Somebody gets it! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

You are correct, new wingsuits have a slightly larger wingspan than older ones. But you seem to be overlooking the fact that they have a MUCH larger chord than the older ones. There's a reason it's called aspect ratio. If you take a fraction and slightly increase the numerator, and greatly increase the denominator, you decrease the overall value. With that in mind, aspect ratio has decreased over the years. Make a suit that looks like a Classic I, but with giant grippers pointing outward, and you will truly have an increased aspect ratio. But no suits have evolved in that direction. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I don't think he was comparing them. If you can't see that... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Since my earlier cartoons using only math and paper found the same numbers, I will use my eyeballs and make a bit of a WAG (which is more than enough for my purposes here): Human body: 0.5sqm With baggy jumpsuit: 0.6-0.7sqm Early wingsuit: 1.2sqm Modern wingsuit: 2sqm (all numbers for an ABOVE average height male) +/- 20% for my eyeballs not being perfect. More precision is not needed IMO. If it was I'd spend the time sketching it out in CAD also. Bottom line, all numbers are far less than we need for soaring. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Remember my cartoon earlier, which found 1.75sqm that using only pencil, paper, arithmetic, and geometry? That was for a 170cm height (average male). If I had chosen 185cm like you... 1.75sqm (185/170)^2 = 2.1sqm Hey look, math really does work! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Are you using MySquarePro 2.0, or Area Lite v6? I can never decide which software suite to use for my basic geometry needs! www.WingsuitPhotos.com