The111

Nice shots Jeff. Wish I could have been there. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I can see an arguable issue with the first photo (depending on background of the jump). The second photo is fine unless it's a FFC (again, depends on the background of the jump). Climbing out in a suit does need to be taught at some point... just not during a FFC. The third photo is the only one that scares me a lot. Realistically speaking, they will "probably" be ok because the extra weight of the passenger will force a very headhigh orientation (just like collapsing legs solo). Fundamentally though, extra insurance (maintaining collapsed arms) is always smart. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I scored a 1.11! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yeah, go figure, aerodynamics never support hype. The comparison Jeb refers to has nothing to do with aerodynamics, only very basic relative motion. The comparison was: moving object relative to a moving object compared to moving object relative to fixed object The comparison doesn't really provide evidence for either side of the argument. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

This book got published a while back, but I just now finally got my copy. http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Robin-M-Kowalski/dp/0470646446/ Nothing big, just a small image on page 455 if you're looking for it. See attached. I however am amused at the different ways in which Physics books and Psychology books treat wingsuit flyers. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Would love to see it. Outside fixed cam POV (like the ones of you buzzing the balloons, except from a side perspective relative to flight path)... with either the horizon in the background, or a level in the foreground (to prove our perspective is level). And the pilot flying through the frame, going up. That would certainly end all the arguing.

Wow, SEVERAL people splitting the profits of 10 AAD's... doesn't sound very profitable. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I really like the bit about "flying and trespassing." I vividly remember my very first jump (AFF from Cessna... no tandems for me). Just after exit, the one thing running through my mind wasn't fear (plenty of time for fear just BEFORE the exit). The one thing in my mind was a simple thought: "we do not belong up here... we are very small, and the earth is very large and very far, and we are aliens where we don't belong." Never heard anyone else put it quite that way before, though I'm sure it's a common feeling. Good luck with your AFF! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

October 2008 in Houston

Nice job girls, and nice job Brian! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Fiber coptic? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Wow, I've heard of people stealing copper from construction sites... but never from live power lines. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Whatever he called it at the time, I am positive it was not one of the "standard" suit names. He specifically told me it was a prototype made per request of a BASE jumper, and he was either thinking of calling or it had called it something (which I think was Apache, but am not sure). I agree it does look an awful lot like a Raptor though. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

If memory serves correctly, I believe Jeff called this suit an Apache. http://www.matthoover.com/gallery/skydiving-photos/2007-03/2007-03_p89.html#navbar www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Somewhere between 50 and 100. In the real world, it is situation dependent. In a dropzone with very few outs, where you will be flying the rider over places he/she couldn't land comfortably, I'd almost say 100. But rules are usually situation independent, so if a hard rule was set it should be 75 or 100 maybe. On the other hand, I am not usually for too many rules, and a licensed skydiver is in charge of his own life. But IF a rule were instituted, that's my vote for the numbers. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

It's a shame, that howstuffworks site is pretty good for a lot of stuff. Or at least was a long time ago. I can't fathom why somebody who doesn't know this shit would pretend to. Stop me if you ever see me putting a NASCAR quiz online. For whatever it's worth, I emailed the contact page and let them know real skydivers are laughing behind their back. I wonder if they'll fix it... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yeah it was, but my joke wouldn't work with a palindrome. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Medusa, don't forget the Bird-Man 3S. It it what you call a S3, worn backwards by a crazy Colombian. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Too many Tony prototypes to attempt to list. I believe this photo from left to right, is Nebula, Stingray, ______, and Eagle? I don't remember what Jeff called that single skin suit, but I do remember he claimed single skin was the future. TONY SUIT LINEUP! Also Tony called the Intro the Snow Angel when it was in a prototype. SNOW ANGEL There was also the MERCURY which I always thought looked neat, but never saw the light of day. Sort of did influence the newer Tony suits though, the Bird/Wing whatever they are called. But my absolute favorite has to be the PAJAMA SUIT. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Gotta collect them all!!! Kitesurfing is much worse. There are 50+ companies easy, and each one has a half dozen kites. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I'll take a physics debate over the brandwar any day, even if there are some asinine pedants involved. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Agreed. Now you re-read post #26. What Butters said in that was 100% accurate. Your larger suit (with added weight - a necessary condition added by you in the same post) causes more turbulence (from the weight) and more turbulence to those around you (i.e. a larger field of turbulent air) (from the size). And you responded with a pejorative "nonsense." Whether he understood physics or not, he was right. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Actually, what Butters originally said: "And your "large" suit is causing more turbulence for those around you than a "small" suit." Direct quote, emphasis added. If a certain flocker is a certain distance away from you, and experiencing zero turbulence (just outside your burble) with you wearing a small suit, and you then put on a larger suit, and increase the distance over which the wake extends... you would be causing more turbulence for that flocker. He would go from experiencing nothing, to something (regardless of the fact that your "total turbulence" remained unchanged - which isn't even the case here anyway, since you put on weight). Sure you do, but that wasn't the original issue. Butters wasn't comparing you to the average male. He was comparing you to yourself, in a smaller suit and without weight. With weight, you produce more turbulence than you would without the belt (and more turbulence for those around you - a larger field - just by wearing the suit). I asked you earlier twice to respond to a very simple logical deduction, and you ignore me both times. Since you won't discuss logic, I'll do it on my own. So far, you have: - twisted the original issue (comparing yourself to fat men rather than yourself without the belt) - made appeals to emotion (I am truly sorry for your loss as well but it has no place in this thread) - repeatedly insulted other posters by calling them asinine What's next? I'd still like a response to my deduction. I won't call you asinine, or tell you to "go learn some logic." But I will keep asking you to stop dodging the question. P.S. You are free to wear big suits and weight belts. I don't think it's stupid, or rude, nor do I want to sell you a smaller suit. However, it is FALSE to say that adding weight and large wings does not disturb the flockers around you more. Is it significant? Probably not (though that was never the question). But it is MORE. And you know it.

With your arms in front, if you do it properly (fists to opposite shoulders, straitjacket position) then you will get far less drag this way. No matter how far you put your arms behind you, your upper arms and elbows are still exposed. But, either way is sufficient really. www.WingsuitPhotos.com