KrisFlyZ

No it is not the shadow. No butt deflector and no arm wingtip grippers. Isn't this old footage(the yellow suit flying at bispen(?)...the acrobatic suff I've not seen before)...that suit looks closer to an acro... Kris.

Context fellows context...I guessed Voice of Community...same thing I guess...actually mine is closer coz James and Jarno are not customers . Kris.

If the suit had the exact same area as a GTi then 'new technology' might be the reason. When you got a suit with nearly double the area, a comparison is pointless. Kris.

Thanks for the review. I am just waiting to speak to Tony in person(visit Zhills) before ordering a suit from him. Or do I have to buy a suit first so he listens to me ...Just Kidding. Kris.

Tight is good if it is not too tight . Kris.

Only two Sq Ft or so. How about I send you a GPS for two sq ft of mesh?

Anyone know a source for Black Mesh? The kind used on wingsuit inlets. Not small mesh, the one with the bigger holes but not as big as the ones on BASE pilot chutes. Kris.

What is the speed event? Maximum horizontal speed? Kris.

X braced inlet on V2 for comparison. More than 50% of usable inlet area is covered.

For Ground Effect to be a siginificant factor, the distance between the ground and the wing must be really small in wing span terms. Span dominated ground effect reduces induced drag (by not allowing the wingtip vortices to form). for a 50% reduction of induced drag the wing must be 10% of the span from the ground. About 6 inches for a 5 foot span. Chord dominated ground effect may increase lift but the wing must be pretty close to the ground. As an example. A height of 5% of chord for a 30% increase in lift. That is 3 inches for a 5 foot chord. The road will need to be at the exact varying glide angle as this persons flight characteristics in a flare under the atmospheric conditions. In other words, it ain't happening . Kris.

Thanks for the information. With a name like Shadow, I am guessing it is a proximity flying suit. I notice that the X bracing is gone from the legwing inlet. Interesting. Kris.

Did I miss the announcement of this gathering? Would have liked to meet Tony. Anyone know if he is stopping at any UK DZs? Kris.

What!? Bigger is better period.

Well done Padraig. See my phantom's always a winner . Kris.

No no it effects it by 0.00032699. I can prove it. Kris.

Just saying Full flight is confusing. Other things being equal, the opening speed depends on the speed of the air that the PC is released into. So spreading all wings but flying slow will result in a slower opening compared to doing the same thing but flying faster. I have some interesting video on full flight deployments. Will upload once I get home. Both deployments are from full flight but the first flight is flown much steeper. Video 1(v2Ex4St.mov) is a flight with a steep pitch(angle). The resulting opening is brutally fast. Video 2(v2Ex4Fl.mov) is a flight with a slightly shallower pitch angle. Nice and gentle opening. Kris.

Glad that you are experimenting Tony

Sizing looks immaculate. Let us know how it flies. Kris. P.S: With all those choppers handy, who needs an airplane.

The wind normaly detaches from the wings a short distance behind the leading edge already. Choosing a steaper angle means the wind starts to attach to the wing. Causing it the flutter and flap, as the wind starts to grab/attach itself to more of the wing on top You may not have a clean profile/body position, which means the wind never reaches a clean airflow. And keeps the flutter going. But seeing your performance is increasing, you're definately not doing something wrong. You just have to find out how to do it better.. Don't agree with some bits of what you said Jarno. IMO, Attaching air does not cause flap or flutter. At low angles and fast flight regimes, the fabric is pulled parallel to the body. This will not cause or keep flutter going on a properly inflated wing. Proper inflation makes the wing rigid and flap proof. The key reason for flap is improper inflation. In this case, my best guess is that the suit has been taken past its design boundaries. Every inlet based on the design works effectively in a angle of attack range. Here are a few thoughts on inlet types the angle of attack regimes that they are most efficent at. Kris.

I agree with this theory. The leg wing inlet usually (unless you are flying completely flat...When we roll the shoulders, we are reducing the angle of attack of the arm wings and top section of our body and thus reducing drag) is at a higher angle of attack than the arm wings and that may(depending on inlet type) make the leg wing inlets more effective than the arm wing inlets when flying steep. This is why I asked the question in the Apache thread if anyone has flown the Apache steep...really steep. The same thing you describe can be done on a Phantom. Just ease off on the steepness and see what happens(Obvious really). Airlocks will not help when there isn't enough pressure(or dynamic pressure) to force the air into the wings. A properly inflated arm wing does not need to be tensioned outwards, only forwards(form the leading edge ). Kris.

Why only few people are doing it is an interesting question. My answer is that it is Robi and VKB's fault . Most people these days want to do one jump flying away from the wall and start swooping it on the second jump. Seriously... This year several jumpers in tracking gear were flying back high over the landing area from #6. High enough to pull over the lighthouse if they kept going. The Flying Finn as everyone called him was easily pulling over the lighthouse. Pete the Aussie with less than 10 big wall BASE jumps was pulling pretty high over the landing area using tracking gear. None of these guys are thin and tall, neither are they using special thin rigs for tracking. They are average height and solidly built. 2.3 or 2.4 is not hard to fly just because only a few people have done it so far. Afterall, It has been done in a medium sized suit(

Ed ?

GPS numbers with whatever correction we can apply for wind are helpful if you can download after the jump and compare with other jumps on the same day. For me the numbers out of the airplane matched quite well with numbers from Smellveggan jumps. I discarded the ITW data because opening altitudes were too high for GPS based altitude to be trusted(too much possible error). I don't carry a GPS anymore on my jumps, its gotten too boring. Kris.

The way L/Ds have been reported on this forum(horizontal distance / vertical - 300(150 for opening and deployment). A flight of 2100m for 930m of altitude is an L/D of 3.33(2100/630). See why 1.8 sounds too low? From an airplane there is no altitude used in starting a flight. So the numbers from an airplane will be better if you use the method you used to calculate L/D. Kris. P.S: As a side note, I must say that the flight in Kjerag_07.wmv is nowhere near 2100m(you maybe talking about another flight). The 2km point(the ladder in the wire fence behind the white house...This is same fence the we climb over to access the pendulator area) is to the left and ahead of the opening frame and it is not hard to tell that the camera is mounted pointing forwards, this puts the flier behind where the opening point seems to be from the video. As an example , if you stop the video at 1:15 the shore closest to the wall, in front of the Big rocks is 1500m compared to 1600m for the point of the nose on the other side of the river. The white house is 1900m away and the closer you come towards the wall(perpendicular to it) from the white house the distance to the exit point decreases. I walked the landing area several times with a GPS(Hey Scott...this boosted my ego so much, I had a Hard On the entire time).

Let's break down the problem. The total flight time is ~92 secs(1600m vertical distance and 39 mph average speed). a) Exit(at Point A) facing North(for the sake of clarity) at 65 knots(33.22 m/s). b) Turn south quickly(less than 2 secs)...maximum distance traveled in the North direction is 66.44m. c) Maximum of 10 secs is needed to cover this distance going south. A lot more than 66 m can be covered in 10 secs from a still air exit. Using values for this, show me how the speed on the south leg could have been 96 mph (total speed along glidepath...or a reasonable number). 96 mph is too slow. If you jump with a GPS for a few jumps and see what speeds you get when flying for distance, you will see why these numbers you post are wrong. I am almost the same height(187 cm) and was the same exit weight as you when I got this GPS data(last year). Downward speed was mid 40s and GR was between 2.2 and 2.4. That makes the total speed range 108 - 117 mph. Kris.