Pendragon

...my opinion is that the big monowing (Matter, Sugar Glider, S-Fly) suits get lots of float, but not so much drive, resulting in worse overall glide angle (but longer flights and quicker starts from dead air exits) than the multi-wing (Birdman and Phoenix Fly) style suits. I agree with that from a more theoretical standpoint. My take on it is that the "mono-wing" suits appear to have a much lower aspect ratio than the "multi-wing" types so the glide will be lower as the wing is less efficient (greater induced drag). Don't confuse wing-loading with glide - the two are not interdependent. Although the mono-wings have (or appear to have) a larger wing area, this may result in a lower min-sink rate but not a better glide. The analogy is think of yourself under a 150 sq ft 9-cell canopy vs a 265 sq ft 7-cell... Yup, you'll get down quicker under the 150, but you can glide further as the angle of descent is not as steep (glide angle). So, a Matter suit might outfloat an S3, but it'll never cover as much ground. Lastly, with regard to Scaryperry's earlier post, he was (at least, it was clear to me) initially responding to a further question on how different types of suits compare, rather than recommending a V-1 to a beginner... Time to fly!

Yeah, I remember Chris. He was going to do my FFC, but we ran out of weather ... so we went to Chili's instead I like piccies though. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Thanks for that; pity I'm off about midday on the 12th but I'm sure (hope!) some birdies will turn up before then...

I'm travelling to Z-Hills this weekend for a week (work means I miss the "Z-flock & dock" though! ) Are there any people up for some flocking from 6-12th March? -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Hiya all! Any experienced dogs out there to help an aspirant pup with some basic CReW? I'm heading out to Z-Hills soon and will be there from the 6th-11th March. Weather never seems to be right in the UK. Haven't done any CReW before (although I've flown hang and paragliders so know what it's like to fly close to things! ) My details are up-to-date, if you care to look. Any help / suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!

I didn't mean unstable in terms of twitchiness necessarily, just that there would be greater sensitivity to contol input. For example, I was thinking of a hang glider diheral providing roll stability; moving to a flatter angle (or even anhedral) makes the wing more unstable (i.e. more sensitive to control input) but easy to bank/roll. I'm curious as to what the thinking was here with the particular designs. The smaller leg wing I can see would be useful when barrel-rolling; why the curved trailing edge? I presume you had air-locks on either side, hence the ability to back-fly? (something that eludes me at the best of times... ) Nice to see interesting developments and prototypes! -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Interesting leg wing - it's much smaller than, for example, either the S1/S3. Also the trailing edges of the wings appear to be slightly curved... or is that just me? I presume that any "acrobatic" suit would benefit from a reduction in stability, simply to make it more manoeuvrable? This would make it less friendly for flocking - and difficult to fly. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

I would bet that's right, simply because ultimately this will be equipment-led: as manufacturers aim to generate better glide etc etc the suits necessarily become more specialised. e.g. "1" requires a suit with a large performance envelope "2" may be satisfied by a suit designed for "1", but I wouldn't be surprised if a specialist acrobatic suit came out The characteristics and way of flying for "3" is very different; a suit designed for such would surely be ideal for BASE, for which suits are already specifically designed. All depends on how many people get into the discipline, and therefore how big the market is... What wonderful options.

I think that we're in danger of descending into a debate about semantics. You can't just ask whether something is safe or not; it's too black-and-white. Many, if not all, activities suffer from varying degrees of danger. Skydiving is dangerous, it's just that most people consider that the risks are manageable and that it is a repeatable exercise. Some people do not consider that to be true of BASE. However, I'm sure those feelings used to be more prevalent towards skydivers than they are now, so it all comes down to perception. I voted "No" in answer to the poll, but I don't think that the question is particularly helpful and that the poll result - which is unsurprisingly close - purely reflects differences in interpretation and nothing else. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

How many wingsuits do you need? That must be at least your 3rd... Richie Rich -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Not a new problem: the inability to tell is why aircraft lanes are given in flight levels. FL 350 is not really 35,000 ft AMSL (although it could be); it's what the the altimeter would read given a calibration at sea level to a given standard pressure (which may be false). So in reality, they go up and down: but when you consider that these transgress many different weather systems, you can see why. Actually, as a little test, I left my Casio calibrated at around sea level at my DZ in the UK and left for Winter Park, CO. At the foot of the Mary Jane mountain (>9,000 ft) I think the reading was within 100ft. Considering the differences, I didn't think that was too bad. So I really wouldn't worry too much about it. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

I can't see why that is unreasonable. A potential exception to that approach might be for those "B" licence holders that are demo rated, as they have proven landing abilities to some degree, but that's only going to be a very small number. In terms of what it means, I agree with Vicki's previous comment that it'll probably do little to prevent the irresponsible from trying anyway. However, would it make grounding of such individuals more likely? As far as introducing all these qualifications and restrictions, is the CCI required then to endorse all people who are currently performing high-speed landings (like myself doing 90 degree front-riser turns) before April? How exactly will that work? What about people who get coached abroad? -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

It's an English site, but at least it'll give you an idea: http://www.sickandwrong.co.uk/shoponline/cat/Paragliding/Helmets/ So £179, which roughly equates to US$320 ('cause the dollar is so weak... ) Have fun! -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Just found this: the Icaro helmets I mentioned in my previous post have been used for skydiving and wingsuit flights : http://www.icaro2000.com/Gallery/Helmets/4fight%20paracadutismo.htm You could always contact the photographer accredited for more info...? Hope this helps!

The 4-fight cut helmet (by Icaro) was designed for paraglider pilots so they could still look up at their canopy without a long tail getting in the way. They look pretty funky, but I don't know how much they'd help.

If you've got a tail-wind going back to the dropzone (i.e. taking it out long), it always makes sense to dump higher as you will improve your minimum sink rate (by doing this you hang around in the moving airmass [moving relative to the ground] and are carried with it for longer - same argument as why flat flyers should go out first when there are strong uppers). Going into wind is less clear cut - max glide will be slightly faster than min sink - but I was under the impression that canopies had better glide ratios than wingsuits, and certainly more consistent! You have to remember that the position of max glide (relative to the ground) on a wing moves depending on the strength of the head/tailwind. So I would conclude that you're always better off dumping high, even if that's less fun! (you just need to plan your flight better!) Hope that helps.. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Just wanted to add to Vesa's reply that the reason why there are wing tip vortices is because air spills over the edge of the wing from the top and sets up a little eddy. This eddy (the same which produces wake turblulence) makes the wing less efficient in flight. When close to the ground, the eddy cannot form (insufficent space for the air to move and set up the vortex) so the induced drag is mitigated and wing performance is increased. The phenomenon is quite detectable on a landing approach even by a hang glider. Hope this helps! Richard -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Interestingly, demonstration of some form of backflying ability is required in order to even progress to a sit position in the tunnel. When you've been freeflying in the tunnel, you begin to understand why! The problem is that backflying is actually quite hard although possibly essential to anyone trying to learn to sit fly since it's a good recovery position (well it was for me anyway!) and can be used to come back up if gone low. As for people going "head down" straight away, I often really doubt whether they've actually got anywhere close to the position, or just found themselves tracking on their backs (and probably badly at that). How anyone could justify not learning to sit first (even purely at a rudimentary level) before attempting to go head down I cannot understand. The position is very disorientating at first. What bothers me is that many people are trying to freefly and are in fact tracking all over the sky, which they wouldn't realise since the individual concerned does not have a frame of reference. Besides, if you can't fly relative to others you can't fly with others, and that's where the real fun is... -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

I was under the impression that wearing earplugs in freefall was dangerous, or should I stand corrected? Can't see any problem with using them on the ride up in the plane (although I just wear my close-fitting helmet, which quietens things down a little...

N/A

Thanks all... Think I'm going to Z-Hills, partly due to flight availability and cost, partly because Wallaby Ranch is in the area and I can go HANG GLIDING as well!

Are you sure? Looks like it's been hacked again... (or is that just me? ) -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

So Felix has changed citizenship? Apparently he's an "Australian daredevil". I just love N. American news reporting... (they'll probably change that now) -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Thanks for that. Also I suppose I was looking for information about: - How "jumpable" it would be / what the weather would be like? - Would anyone jump with me (I'll be solo ) - Would I need a car? - Could I live on the DZ for 2 weeks, or would that get rather dull? Initially I was thinking about Perris (sounds like a great place) but I don't really know much about these places, especially in terms of the important details! More suggestions?

In about a couple weeks time or so, I'm going to be inbetween jobs... Got 10 weeks off, so I'm thinking of turning into a bit of a "jump hog"